









../.•^^-.''*. .»^\>&\. ./.-iafe-.-'* 





^^^"^ • 






■*-^<* 



''^^<>' 










<^ *'o.o-' <§^ 







0*- "^o, -?5rT«' A 














^ V «» * * « 












0^ -LVl'* ^P' -^ 









*^ o 























'^ 0* 



V "-Js 






^ .... 



0" o ^ *0 



'^^ < 



;tory of a tariff 

(THE TARIFF ACT OF 1909) 

SPEECHES OF 

PRESIDENT TAFT, SPEAKER CANNON 

AND 162 OTHER 
EXTRACTS FROM DEBATE IN THE 

IctRA SESSION OF THE SIXTY-FIRST CONGRES! 





93 subjects: 577 NOTATIONS 



PRICE FIFTY CENTS. 



PUBLISHED BY 

AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE 



NEW YORK. 



1910. 



LINCOLN'S TARIFF CREED 



Secretary Stanton once asked Abraham 
Lincoln what he thought of a Protective Tariff. 
Mr. Lincoln replied: **I don't know much 
about the Tariff, but I do know that if my wife 
buys her cloak in America, we get the money 
and the cloak, and that American labor is paid 
for producing it; if she buys her cloak abroad, 
we get only the cloak, the other country gets 
the money, and foreign labor receives the 
benefit." 




STORY OF A TARIFF 



% 



>X: ST 






Tr*».o»'f*'^ 



lUN 1 1921 



(100) 



STORY OF A TARIFF 

(THE TARIFF ACT OF 1909) 



The Best Tariff Bill that the Republican Party Ever Passed." 

-PRESIDENT TAFT. 



There is only one thing that can halt this confident move 
forward to give the country another era of prosperity such 
as we had from 1897 to 1907, and that is agitation for the 
mere purpose of agitation, without any well-conceived 
healthy purpose in view."— SPEAKER CANNON. 



Everybody has a perfect Tariff Bill— in his mind, but, unfortun- 
ately, a bill of that character has no extra-territorial juris- 
diction."-The late THOMAS B. REED. 



( Parts of Congressional Record. ) 



EXTRACTS FROM DEBATE IN THE 

EXTRA SESSION OF THE SIXTY- FIRST CONGRESS 

INCLUDING SPEECHES BY 

PRESIDENT TAFT. 

ALDRICH, NELSON W., U. S. S., R. I. BATES, ARTHUR L., M. C, Penn. 

AMES, BUTLER, M.C., Mass. BEVERIDGE, ALBERT J., U.S.S., Iiid. 

AUSTIN, RICHARD W., M. C, Tenn. BORAH, WILLIAM E., U.S.S., Idaho. 

BACON, AUGUSTUS O., U.S.S., Ga. BOURNE Jr., JONATHAN, U.S.S., Ore, 

BAILEY, JOSEPH W., U.S.S., Texas. BOUTELL, HENRY S., M.C„ 111, 



BOWERS, EATON J., M.C., Mis.s. 
BRADLEY, THOMAS W., M.C., N. Y. 
BRADLEY, WILLIAM O., U.S.S., Ky. 
BRANDEGEE, F. B., U.S.S., Conn. 
BRISTOW, JOSEPH L., U.S.S., Kaiis. 
BROrSSARD, ROBERT F., M.C., Lii. 
BROWN, NORRIS, U.S.S., Nebr. 
BROWNLOW, W. P., M.C., Tenn. 
BrLKELEY, M. G., U.S.S., Conn. 
BURKE, JAMES F., M.C., Pa. 
BURKETT, ELMER J., U.S.S., Nebr. 
BURROWS, JULIUS C, U.S.S., Midi. 
BURTOJS', THEODORE E., U.S.S., O 
GALDERHEAD, AVM. A., M.C., Kans. 
CAMPBELL, PHILIP P., M.C., Kans. 
CANNON, JOSEPH G., M.C., HI. 
CARTER, THOMAS H., U.S.S., Mout. 

CLAPP, MOSES E., U.S.S., Minn, 

CLARK, CHAMP, M.C., Mo. 

CLARK, FRANK, M.C., Fla. 

CLAY, ALEXANDER S., U.S.S., Ga. 

CLAYTON, HENRY D., M.C., Ala. 

COLE, RALPH D., M.C, Ohio. 

COWLES, CHARLES H., M.C., N. C. 

CRAWFORD, COE I., l^.S.S., S. Dak. 

CRUMPACKER, P:DGAR D., M.C, Ind. 

CULBERSON, CHAS. A., U.S.S., Tox. 

(T'MMINS, ALBERT P... U.S.S.. Iowa. 

CUSHMAN, FRANCIS W., M.C, Wash. 

DALZELL, JOHN, M.(^., Pa. 

DANIEL, JOHN W., U.S.^., Va. 

DAVIDSON, JAMES H., M.C, Wis. 
DEPEW, CHAUNCEY M.. U.S.S., N. Y. 

DICK, CHARLES, U.S.S., Ohio. 
DIEKEMA, a. J., M.C, Mich. 
DIXON, JOSEPH M.. U.S.S., Mont. 



DOLLIVER, JONATHAN P., U.S.S., la. 
DRISCOLL, MICHAEL E., M.C, N. Y. 
EDWARDS, DON C, M.C, Ky. 
ELKINS, STEPHEN B., U.S.S.. W. Va 
ELVINS, POLITTE, M.C, Mo. 
FASSETT, J. SLOAT, M.C, N. Y. 
FISH, HAMILTON, M.C, N. Y. 
FLETCHER, D. UPSHAW, U.S.S., Fla. 
FLINT, FRANK P., U.S.S., Cal. 
FOCHT, BENJAMIN K., M.C, Pa. 
FORDNEY, JOSEPH ^Y., M.C, Mich. 
FOSTER, MURPHY J., U.S.S., La. 
FRYE, WILLIAM P., U.S.S., Me. 
FULLER, CHARLES E., M.C, 111. 
GAINES, JOSEPH IL, M.C, W. Va. 
GALLINGiER, JACOB H., U.S.S., N. H. 
GAMBLE, ROBERT J., U.S.S., S. Dak. 

GARDNER, AUG. P., M.C, Mass. 

GLASS, CARTER, M.C, Va. 

GORE, THOMAS P., U.S.S., Okla. 

GRAHAM, JAMES M., M.C, III. 

GRAHAM, WILLIAM H., M.C, Pa. 

GRONNA, ASLE J., M.C. N. Dak. 

GUERNSEY, FRANK E., M.C, Me. 

GUGGENHEIM, SIMON, U.S.S., Colo 

HALE, EUGENE, U.S.S., Me. 

HAMER, THOMAS R., M.C, l(hilio. 

HAMILTON, EDWARD L., M.C. Mir' 

HAMLIN, COURTNEY W., M.C, Mo. 

HAMMOND, W. S., M.C, Minn. 

HAUGEN, GILBERT N., M.C, Iowa, 

HEYBURN, WELDON B., U.S.S., Ida. 

HILL, EBENEZER J., M.C, Conn. 

HOLLINGS WORTH, D. A., M.C, Ohio. 
HOWELL, JOSEPH, M.C, Utah. 
HUBBARD, WM. P., M.C, W, V^. 



HUGHES, JAMES A., M.C., W. Va. 
HIXL, JOHN A. T., M.C., Iowa. 
HUMPHREY, WM. E., M.C., Wash. 
JOHNSON, MARTIN N., U.S.S., N. D. 
JONES, WESLEY L., U.S.S., Wash. 
JONES, WILLIAM A., M.C., Va. 
KEIFER, J. WARREN, M.C., Ohio. 
KENNEDY, JAMES, M.C., Ohio. 
KINKAID, MOSES P., M.C., Nebr. 
KNAPP, CHARLES L., M.C., N. Y. 
KOPP, ARTHUR W., M.C., Wis. 
KORBLY, CHARLES A., M.C., Ind. 
KUSTERMANN, GUSTAV, M.C., Wis. 
LAFEAN, DANIEL F., M.C., Pa. 
LA FOLLETTE, R. M., U.S.S., Wis. 
LANGLEY, JOHN W., M.C., Ky. 
LENROOT, IRVINE L., M.C., Wis. 
LODGE, HENRY C, U.S.S., Mass. 
LONGWORTH, NICHOLAS, M.C., O 
McCALL, SAMUEL W., M.C., Mass. 
McCUMBER, PORTER J., U.S.S., N. D. 
McENERY, SAMUEL D., U.S.S., La. 
McKINLAY, DUNCAN E., M.C., Cal. 
MADDEN, MARTIN B., M.C., HI. 
MAGUIRE, JOHN A., M.C., Nebr. 
MALBY, GEORGE R., M.C., N. Y. 
MARTIN, EBEN W., M.C., S. Dak. 
MILLER, JAMES M., M.C., Kans. 
MONDELL, FRANK W., M.C., Wyo. 
MOORE, J. HAMPTON, M.C., Pa. 
MORGAN, CHARLES H., M.C., Mo. 
MORGAN, DICK T., M.C., Okla. 
MORSE, ELMER A., M.C., Wis. 
NEEDHAM, JAMES C, M.C., Cal. 
NELSON, JOHN M., M.C., Wis. 
NELSON, KNUTE, U.S.S., Minn. 
NYE, FRANK M., M.C., Minn. 
OLIVER, GEORGE T., U.S.S., Pa. 
OWEN, ROBERT L., U.S.S., Okla. 
PARKER, R. WAYNE. M.C., N. J. 



PAYNE, SERENO E., M.C., N. Y. 
PENROSE, BOIES, U.S.S., Pa. 
PERKINS, GEORGE C, U.S.S., Cal. 
PETERS, ANDREW J., M.C., Mass. 
PILES, SAMUEL H., U.S.S., Wash. 
POINDEXTER, MILES, M.C., W^ash. 
POU, EDWARD W., M.C., N. C. 
PRAY, CHARLES N., M.C., Mont. 
PUJO, ARSENE P., M.C., La. 
RANSDELL, JOSEPH E., M.C., La. 
RAYNER, ISIDOR, U.S.S., Md. 
REEDER, WILLIAM A., M.C., Kans. 
REYNOLDS, JOHN M., M.C., Pa. 
RICHARDSON, WILLIAM, M.C., Ala. 
ROOT, ELIHU, U.S.S., N. Y. 
SCOTT, CHARLES F., M.C., Kans. 
SCOTT, NATHAN B., U.S.S., W. Va. 
SHARP, WILLIAM G., M.C., Ohio. 
SHIVELY, BENJAMIN F., U.S.S., Ind. 
SIMMONS, JAMES S., M.C., N. Y. 
SIMS, THETUS W., M.C., Tenn. 
SLEMP, C. BASCOM, M.C., Va. 
SMITH, ELLISON D., U.S.S., S.C. 
SMITH, JOHN WALTER, U.S.S., Md. 
SMITH, SAMUEL W., M.C., Mich. 
SMITH, WM. ALDEN, U.S.S., Mich. 
SMOOT, REED, U.S.S., Utah. 
STAFFORD, WILLIAM H., M.C., Wis. 
STEENERSON, HALVOR, M.C., Minn. 
STONE, WILLIAM J., U.S.S., Mo. 
STURGISS, GEORGE C, M.C., W. Va. 
SUTHERLAND, GEO., U.S.S., Utah. 
SWASEY, JOHN P., M.C., Me. 
TALIAFERRO, JAMES P., U.S.S., Fla. 
TAWNEY, JAMES A., M.C., Minn. 
TILLMAN, BENJ. R., U.S.S., S. C. 
TOWNSEND, CHAS. E., M.C., Mich. 
WARNER, WILLIAM, U.S.S., Mo. 
WARREN, FRANCIS E., U.S.S., Wyo. 
YOUNG, H. OLIN, M.C., Mich. 



6 



PRESIDENT TAFT, 



The President of the United States 
Declares the Tariff Law of 1909 to 
be "The Best Tariff Bill that the 
Republican Party Ever Passed." 

Speech of President Taft 

At Winona, Minn., September 17, 1909. 
Presented by Mr. Carter, December 1, 
1909. Ordei-ed to be Printed. 

MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: As long 
ago as August, 1906, in the congres- 
sional campaign in Maine, I ventured 
to announce that I was a Tariff revi- 
sionist, and thought that the time had 
come for a readjustment of the sched- 
ules. I pointed out that it had been 
ten years prior to that time that the 
Dingley bill had been passed; that 
great changes had taken place in the 
conditions surrounding the productions 
of the farm, the factory, and the mine, 
and that under the theory of Protec- 
tion in that time the rates imposed in 
the Dingley bill in many instances 
might hayfie become excessive; that is, 
might have been greater than the dif- 
ference between the cost of production 
abroad and the cost of production at 
home, with a sufficient allowance for 
a reasonable rate of profit to the Amer- 
ican producer. I said that the party 
was divided on the issue, but that in 
my judgment the opinion of the party 
was crystallizing and would probably 
result in the near future in an effort 
to make such revision. I pointed out 
the difficulty that there always was 
in a revision of the Tariff, due to the 
threatened disturbance of industries to 
be affected, and the suspension of busi- 
ness, in a way which made it unwise to 
have too many revisions. In the sum- 
mer of 1907 my position on the Tariff 
was challenged, and I then entered into 
a somewhat fuller discussion of the 
n^.attcr. It was contended by the so- 
called "standpatters" that rates beyond 
the necessary measure of Protection 
were not objectionable, because behind 
the Tariff wall competition always re- 
duced the prices, and thus saved the 
consumer. But I pointed out in tliat 
speech what seems to me as true to- 
day as it then was, tliat the danger of 
excessive rates was in the temptation 
tliey created to form monopolies in the 
Protected articles, and thus to take ad- 
Vtontiige Qt the ejtcQSSiv^ rates by in- 



creasing the prices, and therefore, and 
in order to avoid such a danger, it was 
wise at regular intervals to examine 
the question of what the effect of the 
rates had been upon the industries in 
this country, and whether the condi- 
tions with respect to the cost of pro- 
duction here had so changed as to war- 
rant a reduction in the Tariff, and to 
make a lower rate truly Protective of 
the industry. 

Not to Destroy Protected Industries. 

It will be observed that the object of 
the revision under such a statement 
was not to destroy Protected' industries 
in this country, but it was to continue 
to Protect them where lower rates of- 
fered a sufficient Protection to prevent 
injury by foreign competition. That 
was the object of the revision as ad- 
vocated by me, and it was certainly 
the object of the revision as promised 
in the Republican platform. 

I want to make as clear as I can this 
proposition, because, in order to deter- 
mine whether a bill is a compliance 
with the terms of that platform, it 
must be understood what the platform 
means. A Free-Trader is opposed to any 
Protective rate because he thinks that 
our manufacturers, our farmers, and 
our miners ought to withstand the 
competition of foreign manufacturers 
and miners and farmers, or else go out 
of business and find something else 
more profitable to do. Now, certainly 
the promises of the platform did not 
contemplate the downward revision of 
the Tariff rates to such a point that 
any industry theretofore Protected 
should be injured. Hence, those who 
contend that the promise of the plat- 
form was to reduce prices by letting 
in foreign competition, are contending 
for a Free-Trade, and not for anything 
that they h.ad the right to infer from 
the Republican platform. 

Spent a Full Year in Investigation. 

The Ways and INIeans Committee of 
the House, with Mr. Payne at its liead, 
spent a full year in an investigation, 
assembling evidence in reference to the 
rates under the Tariff, and devoted an 
immense amount of work in the study 
of the question where the Tariff rates 
could be reduced and where they 
ougiit to bo raised with a view to 
m.ajntaining ^ reasonably Pro^QQtive 



PRESIDENT TxVFT. 



rate, under the principles of the plat- 
form, for every industry that deserved 
Protection. Tliey found that the deter- 
mination of the question, what was the 
actual cost of production and whetlier 
an industry in this country could live 
under a certain rate and withstand 
threatened competition from abroad, 
was most difficult. The manufacturers 
were prone to exaggerate the injury 
which a reduction in the duty would 
give and to magnify the amount of 
duty that was needed; while the im- 
porters, on the other hand, who were 
interested in developing the importa- 
tion from foreign shores, were quite 
likely to be equally biased on the other 
side. 

Mr. Payne reported a bill — the Payne 
Tariff bill — which went to the Senate 
and wa,s amended in the Senate by in- 
creasing the duty on some things and 
decreasing it on others. The difference 
between the House bill and the Senate 
bill was very much less than the news- 
papers represented. It turns out upon 
examination that the reductions in the 
Senate were about equal to those in 
the House, though thej^ differed in 
character. No'w, there is nothing quite 
so difficult as the discussion of a Tar- 
iff bill, for the reason that it covers 
so many different items, and the mean- 
ing of the terms and the percentages 
are very hard to understand. The pas- 
sage of a new bill, especially where a 
change in the method of assessing the 
duties has been followed, presents an 
opportunity for various modes and cal- 
culations of the percentages of in- 
creases and decreases that are most 
mi.sleadirg and really throw no light 
at all upon the changes made. 

Decreases 654, Increases 220. 

One way of stating what was done 
is to say what the facts show — that 
under the Dingley law there were 2,024 
items. This included dutiable items 
only. The Payne law leaves 1,150 of 
these items unchanged. There are de- 
creases in 65 4 of the items and in- 
creases in 220 of the items. Now, of 
course, that does not give a full pic- 
ture, but it does show the proportion 
of decreases to have been three times 
those of the increases. Again, the 
schedules are divided into letters from 
A to N. The first schedule is that of 
chemicals, oils, etc. There are 232 



items in the Dingley law; of these, 81 
were decreased, 22 were increased, 
leaving 129 unchanged. 

Under Schedule B — earths, earthen 
and glassware — there Avere 170 items 
in the Dingley law; 46 were decreased, 
12 were increased, and 112 left un- 
changed. 

C is the schedule of metals and man- 
ufactures. There were 321 items in the 
Dingley law; 185 were decreased, 30 
were increased, and 106 were left un- 
changed. 

D is the schedule of wood and manu- 
factures of wood. There were 35 items 
in the Dingley law; 18 were decreased 
3 were increased, and 14 were left un- 
changed. 

There were 38 items in sugar, and of 
these 2 were decreased and 36 left 
unchanged. 

Schedule F covers tobacco and manxi- 
factures of tobacco, of which there 
were 8 items; they were all left un- 
changed. 

In the schedule covering agricultu- 
ral products and provisions there were 
187 iteius in the Dingley laAv; 14 of 
them Were decreased, 19 were in- 
creased, and 154 left unchanged. 

Schedule H — that of spirits and 
wines — contained 33 items in the Ding- 
ley law; 4 were decreased, 23 increased, 
and 6 were left unchanged. 

In cotton manufactures there were 
261 items; of these 28 were decreased, 
47 increased, and 186 left unchanged. 

In Schedule J — flax, hemp, and jute 
— there were 254 items in the Dingley 
law; 187 were reduced, 4 were in- 
creased, and 63 left unchanged. 

In wool, and manufactures thereof, 
there were 78 items; 3 were decreased, 
none were increased, and 75 left un- 
changed. 

In silk and silk goods there were 78 
'items; of these, 21 were decreased, 31 
were increased, and 26 were left un- 
changed. 

In pulp, papers, and books there 
were 59 items in the Dingley law, and 
of these 11 were decreased, 9 were in- 
creased, and 39 left unchanged. 

In sundries there were 270 items, 
and of these 54 were decreased, 20 
were increased, and 196 left unchanged. 

So that the total showed 2,024 items 
in the Dingley law, of which 654 were 
decreased, 220 were increased, making 
874 changes, and 1,150 left unchanged. 



PRESIDENT TAFT. 



Changes Made in the Payne Law. 

Changes in Dingley law by- 
Payne law. 
Items in 

Schedules. Dingley Total 

law. Decreases. Increases, changes. Unchanged. 

A. Chemicals, oils, etc 232 81 22 103 129 

B. Earths, earthen and glass ware 170 46 12 58 112 

C. Metals, and manufactures of 321 185 30 215 lOG 

D. Wood, and manufactures of 35 18 3 21 14 

E. Sugar, molasses, and manufactures of . . 38 2 2 36 

F. Tobacco, and manufactures of 8 8 

G. Agricultural products and provisions... 187 14 19 33 154 

H. Spirits, wines, etc 33 4 23 27 6 

I. Cotton manufactures 261 28 47 75 186 

J. Flax, hemp, jute, manufactures of 254 187 4 191 63 

K. Wool, and manufactures of 78 3 3 75 

L. Silk and silk goods 78 21 31 52 26 

M. Pulp, papers, and books 59 11 9 20 39 

N. Sundries 270 54 20 74 196 

Total 2,024 654 220 874 1,150 



Attempts have been made to show 
what the real effect of these changes 
has been by comparing the imports 
under the various schedules, and as- 
suming- that the changes and their 
importance were in proportion to the 
importations. Nothing could be more 
unjust in a Protective Tariff which also 
contains revenue provisions.. Some 
of the Tariff is made for the purpose 
of increasing the revenue by increasing 
importations which shall pay duty. 
Other items in the Tariff are made for 
the purpose of reducing competition, 
that is, by reducing importations, and, 
therefore, the question of the impor- 
tance of a change in rate can not in 
the slightest degree be determined by 
the amount of imports that take place. 
In order to determine the importance 
of the changes, it is much fairer to 
take the articles on which the rates 
of duty have been reduced and those 
on which the rates of duty have been 
increased, and then determine from 
statistics how large a part the articles 
upon which duties have been reduced 
play in the consumption of the coun- 
try, and how large a part those upon 
which the duties have been increased 
play in the consumption of the coun- 
try. Such a table has been prepared 
by Mr. Payne, than whom there is no 
one who understands better what the 
Tariff is and who has given more at- 
tention to the details of the schedule. 

Mainly Reductions. 
Now, let us take Schedule A — chem- 
icals, oils, and paints. The articles 
upon which the duty has boon do- 



creased are consumed in this country 
to the extent of $433,000,000. The 
articles upon which the duty has been 
increased are consumed in this coun- 
try to the extent of $11,000,000. 

Take Schedule B. The articles on 
which the duty has been decreased en- 
tered in the consumption of the coun- 
try to the amount of $128,000,000, and 
there has been no increase in duty on 
such articles. 

Take Schedule C — metals and their 
manufactures. The amount to whicli 
such articles enter into the consump- 
tion of the country is $1,221,000,000. 
whereas the articles of the same sched- 
ule upon which there has been an in- 
crease enter into the consumption of 
the country to the extent of only $37.- 
000,000. 

Take Schedule D — lumber. The ar- 
ticles in this schedule upon which 
there has been a decrease enter into 
the consumption of the country to the 
extent of $.560,000,000, whereas the ar- 
ticles under the same schedule upon 
which there has been an increase en- 
ter into its consumption to the extent 
of $31,000,000. 

In tobacco there has been no change. 
In agricultural products, those in 
which there has been a reduction of 
rates enter into the consumption of 
the country to the extent of $483.- 
000.000; those in which there has been 
an Increase enter into the consumption 
to the extent of $4,000,000. 

In the schedule of wines and liquors, 
the articles upon which there has been 
an increase, enter into the consumption 



PRESIDE^'T TAFT. 



9 



of the country to the extent of |462,- 
000,000. 

In cottons there has been a change 
in the higher-priced cottons and an 
increase. There has been no increase 
in the lower-priced cottons, and of the 
increases the high-priced cottons enter 
into the consumption of the country to 
the extent of $41,000,000. 

Schedule J — flax, hemp, and jute. 
The articles upon which there has been 
a decrease enter into the consumption 
of the country to the extent of $22,- 
000,000, while those upon which there 
has been an increase enter into the 
consumption to the extent of $804,000. 
In Schedule J as to wool, there has 
been no change. 

In Schedule L as to silk, the duty has 
been decreased on articles which enter 
into the consumption of the country to 
the extent of $8,000,000, and has been 
increased on articles that enter into 
the consumption of the country to the 
extent of $106,000,000. 

On paper and pulp the duty has been 
decreased on articles, including print 



paper, that enter into the consumption 
of the country to the extent of $67,- 
000,000, and increased on articles that 
enter into the consumption of the 
country to the extent of $81,000,000. 

In sundries, or Schedule N. the duty 
has been decreased on articles that en- 
ter into the consumption of the coun- 
try to the extent of $1,719,000,000; and 
increased on articles that enter into 
the consumption of the country to the 
extent of $101,000,000. 

Increases in Luxuries. 

It will be found that in Schedule A 
the increases covered only luxuries — 
perfume_ries, pomades, and like ar- 
ticles; Schedule H — wines and liquors 
— which are certainly luxuries and are 
made subject to increase in order to 
increase the revenues, amounting to 
$462,000,000; and in Schedule L — silks — 
which are luxuries, certainly, $106,- 
000,000, making a total of the consump- 
tion of those articles upon which there 
was an increase and which were lux- 
uries of $579,000,000, leaving a balance 



Decreases Cover Values of Nearly Five Billions. 

STATEMENT. 
Sched- _ Article. Consumption value, 

ule. Duties de- Duties in- 

creased, creased. 

A. Chemicals, oils, and paiuts $ 433,099,S46 $11,105,820 

B. Earths, earthenware, and glassware 128,423,732 

C. Metals, and manufactures of 1,221,956,620 37,675,804 

D. Wood, and manufactures of 566,870,950 31,280,372 

E. Sugar, molasses, and manufactures of '. 300,965,953 

F. Tobacco, and manufactures of (no change of rates) 

G. Agricultural products and provisions 483,430,637 4,380,043 

H. Spirits, wines, and other beverages 462,001,856 

I. Cotton manufactures 41,622,024 

J. Flax, hemp, jute, and manufactures of 22,127,145 804,445 

K. Wool and manufactures of wool. (No production statistics 
available for articles affected by changes of rates.) 

L. Silks and silk goods 7,947,568 106,742,646 

M. Pulp, papers, and books 67,628,055 81,486,466 

N. Sundries 1,719,428,069 101,656,598 

Total $4,951,878,575 $878,756,074 

of increase on articles which were not Schedule A. Chemicals, including 

luxuries of value in consumption of perfumeries, pomades, and like 

article'^ S5 1 1 10*^ R90 

only $272,000,000, as against $5,000,000,- schedule H. ' Wines' and' ii'q'uo'rs 462,001.856 

000, representing the amount of ar- Schedule L. Silks 106,742,646 

tides entering into the consumption ^^^^^ $5^^"^^^^ 

of the country, mostly necessities, 

upon which there has been a reduction This leaves a balance of increases 

of duties, and to which the 650 de- which are not on articles of luxury of 

creases applied. $298,905,752, as against decreases on 

Of the above increases the following about five billion dollars of consunip- 

are luxuries, being articles strictly of tion. 

voluntary use: Now, this statement shows as con- 



10 



PRESIDENT TAFT. 



clusively as possible the fact that there 
was a substantial downward revision 
on articles entering- into the general 
consumption of the country which can 
be termed necessities, for the propor- 
tion is 15,000,000,000, representing the 
consumption of articles to which de- 
creases applied, to less than $300,000,- 

000 of articles of necessity to which 
the increases applied. 

No Promise to Revise Everything Down- 
ward. 
Now, the promise of the Republican 
platform was not to revise everything 
downward, and in the speeches which 
have been taken as interpreting that 
platform, which I made in the cam- 
paign, I did not promise that every- 
thing should go downward. What I 
promised was, that there should be 
many decreases, and that in some few 
things increases would be found to be 
necessary; but that on the whole I 
conceived that the change of condi- 
tions would make the revision neces- 
sarily downward — and that, I contend, 
under the showing which I have made, 
has been the result of the Payne bill. 

1 did not agree, nor did the Republican 
party agree, that we would reduce 
rates to such a point as to reduce 
price's by the introduction of foreign 
competition. That is what the Free- 
Traders desire. That is what the reve- 
nue Tariff reformers desire; but that is 
not what the Republican platform 
promised, and it is not what the Re- 
publican party wished to bring about. 
To repeat tlie statement with which I 
opened this speech, the proposition of 
the Repu])lican party was to reduce 
rates so as to maintain a difference be- 
tween the cost of production abroad 
and the cost of production here, insur- 
ing a reasonable profit to the manu- 
facturer on all articles produced in 
this country; and the proposition to 
reduce rates and prevent their being 
excessive was to avoid the opportunity 
for monopoly and the suppression of 
competition, s|o that the excessive 
ftates could be taken advantage of to 
force prices up. 

No General Rise in Duties On Cotton. 

Now, it is said that there was not a 
reduction in a number of the sched- 
ules where tliere should liave been. 
It is sa'id tliat there was no reduction 



in the cotton schedule. There was not. 
The House and the Senate took evi- 
dence and found from cotton manu- 
facturers and from other sources that 
the rates upon the lower class of cot- 
tons were such as to enable them to 
make a decent profit — but only a de- 
cent profit — and they were contented 
with it; but that the rates on the 
higher grades of cotton cloth, by rea- 
son of court decisions, had been re- 
duced so that they were considerably 
below those of the cheaper grades of 
cotton cloth, and that by undervalua- 
tions and otherwise the whole cotton 
schedule had been made unjust and 
the various items were dispropor- 
tionate in respect to the varying 
cloths. Hence, in the Senate a new 
system was introduced attempting to 
inake the duties more specific rather 
than ad valorem, in order to prevent 
by judicial decision or otherwise a 
disproportionate and unequal opera- 
tion of the schedule. Under this 
schedule it was contended that there 
had been a general rise of all the du- 
ties on cotton. This was vigorously 
denied by the experts of the Treasury 
Department. At last, the Senate in 
conference consented to a reduction 
amounting to about 10 per cent on all 
the lower grades of cotton, and this 
reduced the lower grades of cotton 
substantially to the same rates as be- 
fore and increased the higher grades 
to what they ought to be under the 
Dingley law and what they were in- 
tended to be. Now, I am not going 
into the question of evidence as to 
whether the cotton duties were too 
high and wliether the difference be- 
tween the cost of production abroad 
and at home, allowing for a reasonable 
profit to the manufacturer here, is less 
thaia the duties wliich are imposed un- 
der the Payne bill. It was a question 
of evidence which Congress passed 
upon, after they heard the statements 
of cotton manufacturers and such 
other evidence as they could avail 
themselves of. I agree that the method 
of taking evidence and the determina- 
tion was made in a general way, and 
tliat tliere ought to be other methods 
of obtaining evidence and reaching a 
conclusion more satisfactory. 

Crockery Rates Necessary. 

Criticism has also l)cen made of the 



Plil^SlbENT TAFT. 



11 



crockery schedule and the failure to 
reduce that. The question whether it 
ought to have been reduced or not was 
a question of evidence which both 
committees of Congress toolc up, and 
both concluded that the present rates 
on croclcery were such as were needed 
to maintain the business in this coun- 
try. I had been informed tliat the 
crockery schedule was not high 
enough, and mentioned that in one of 
my campaign speeches as a schedule 
probably where there ought to be some 
increases. It turned out that the diffi- 
culty was rather in undervaluations 
than in the character of the schedule 
itself, and so it was not changed. It 
is entirely possible to collect evidence 
to attack almost any of the schedules, 
but one story is good until another is 
told, and I have heard no reason for 
sustaining the contention that the 
crockery schedule is unduly high. So 
w^ith respect to numerous details — 
items of not great importance — in 
which, upon what they regarded as 
sufficient evidence, the committee ad- 
vanced the rates in order to save a 
business which was likely to be de- 
stroyed. 

Tariff on Print Paper. 

I have never known a subject that 
will evoke so much contradictory evi- 
dence as the question of Tariff rates 
and the question of cost of production 
at home and abroad. Take the subject 
of paper. A committee was appointed 
by Congress a year before the Tariff 
sittings began, to determine what the 
difference was between the cost of 
production in Canada of print paper and 
the cost of production here, and they 
reported that they thought that a good 
bill would be one imposing $2 a ton 
on paper, rather than $6, the Dihgley 
rate, provided that Canada could be in- 
duced to take off the export duties and 
remove the other obstacles to the im- 
portation of spruce wood in this coun- 
try out of which wood pulp is made. 
An examination of the evidence satis- 
fied Mr. Payne — I believe it satisfied 
some of the Republican dissenters — 
that ?2, unless some change was made 
in the Canadian restrictions upon the 
exports of wood to this country, was 
much too low, and that $4 was only a 
fair measure of the difference between 
the cost of production here and in 



Canada. In other words, the $2 found 
by the special committee in the House 
was rather an invitation to Canada and 
the Canadian print-paper people to use 
their influence with their government 
to remove the wood restrictions by 
reducing the duty on print paper 
against Canadian print-paper mills. It 
was rather a suggestion of a diplo- 
matic nature than a positive statement 
of the difference in actual cost of pro- 
duction under existing conditions be- 
tween Canada and the United States. 

Changes as to Hides, Leather, Boots and 
Shoes. 

There are other subjects which I 
might take up. The Tariff on hides 
was taken off because it was thought 
that it was not necessary in view of 
the high price of cattle thus to protect 
the man who raised them, and that the 
duty imposed was likely to throw the 
control of the sale of hides into the 
hands of the meat packers in Chicago. 
In order to balance the reduction on 
hides, however, there was a great re- 
duction in shoes, from 25 to 10 per 
cent; on sole leather, from 20 to 5 per 
cent; on harness, from 45 to 20 per 
cent. So there was a reduction in the 
duty on coal of 33 1-3 per cent. 

All countervailing duties were re- 
moved from oil, naphtha, gasoline, and 
its refined products. 

Lumber was reduced from $2 to 
$1.25; and these all on articles of prime 
necessity. It is said that there might 
have been more. But there were many 
business interests in the South, in 
Maine, along the border, and especially 
in the far Northwest, which insisted 
that it would give great advantage to 
Canadian lumber if the reduction were 
made more than 75 cents. Mr. Pinchot, 
the Chief Forester, thought that it 
would tend to make better lumber in 
this country if a duty were retained on 
it. The lumber interests thought that 
$2 was none too much, but the reduc- 
tion was made and the compromise ef- 
fected. Personally I was in favor of 
free lumber, because I did not think 
that if the Tariff was taken off there 
would he much suffering among the 
lumber interests. But in the contro- 
versy the House and the Senate took 
a middle course, and who can say they 
were not justified? 



12 



PRESIDENT TAFT. 



The Wool Schedule. 

With respect to the wool schedule, I 
agree that it is too high and that it 
ought to have been reduced, and that it 
probably represents considerably more 
than the difference between the cost of 
production abroad and the cost of pro- 
duction here. The difficulty about the 
woolen schedule is that there were two 
contending factions early in the his- 
tory of Republican Tariffs, to wit, 
woolgrowers and the woolen manufac- 
turers, and that finally, many years 
ago, they settled on a basis by which 
wool in the grease should have 11 
cents a pound, and by which allow- 
ance should be made for the shrink- 
age of the washed wool in the differ- 
ential upon woolen manufactures. The 
percentage of duty was very heavy — 
quite beyond the difference in the cost 
of production, which was not then re- 
garded as a necessary or proper limi- 
tation upon Protective duties. 

When it came to the question of 
reducing the duty at this hearing in 
this Tariff bill on wool, Mr. Payne, in 
the house, and Mr. Aldrich, in the 
Senate, although both favored reduc- 
tion in the schedule, found that in the 
Republican party the interests of the 
woolgrowers of the Far West and the 
interests of the woolen manufacturers 
in the East and in other States, re- 
flected through their representatives in 
Congress, was sufficiently strong to de- 
feat any attempt to change the woolen 
Tariff, and that had it been attempted 
it would have beaten the bill reported 
from either committee. I am sorry 
this is so, and I could wish that it had 
been otherwise. It is the one impor- 
tant defect in the present Payne Tariff 
bill and in the performance of the 
promise of the platform to reduce 
rates to a difference in the cost of pro- 
duction, with reasonable profit to the 
manufacturer. That it will increase 
the price of woolen cloth or clothes, I 
very much doubt. There have been 
increases by the natural increase in 
the price of wool the world over as 
an agricultural product, but this was 
not due to the Tariff, because the 
Tariff was not changed. The increase 
would therefore have taken place 
whether the Tariff would have been 
changed or not. The co.st of woolen 
cloths beliind the Tariff wall, through 
the effect of comp<'tition, has been 



greatly less than the duty, if added to 
the price, would have made it. 

Some Complaints. 

There is a complaint now by the 
woolen clothiers and by the carded 
woolen people of this woolen schedule. 
They have honored me by asking in 
circulars sent out by them that certain 
questions be put to me in respect to it, 
and asking why I did not veto the bill 
in view of the fact that the woolen 
schedule was not made in accord with 
the platform. I ought to say in re- 
spect to this point that all of them in 
previous Tariff bills were strictly in 
favor of maintaining the woolen 
schedule as it was. The carded woolen 
people are finding that carded wools 
are losing their sales because they are 
going out of style. People prefer wor- 
steds. The clothing people who are 
doing so much circularizing were con- 
tented to let the woolen schedule re- 
main as it was until very late in the 
Tariff discussion, long after the bill 
had passed the House, and, indeed, 
they did not grow very urgent until 
the bill had passed the Senate. This 
was because they found that the price 
of woolen cloth was going up, and so 
they desired to secure reduction in the 
Tariff which would enable them to get 
cheaper material. They themselves are 
Protected by a large duty, and I can 
not with deference to them ascribe 
their intense interest only to a deep 
sympathy with the ultimate consumers, 
so-called. But, as I have already said, 
I am quite willing to admit that allow- 
ing the woolen schedule to remain 
where it is, is not a compliance witli 
the terms of the platform as I inter- 
pret it and as it is generally under- 
stood. 

The Best Ever Passed. 

On the ^vhole, however, I am bound 
to say that I think the Payne Tariff 
bin .Is the best Tariflf bill that the Re- 
publlenn party ever passed; that In It 
the party has conceded the necessity 
for follo^vingr the changred conditions 
and reducing Tariff rates accordingly. 
This is a substantial achievement in 
the direction of lower Tariffs and 
downward revision, and it ought to be 
accepteil as such. 

Critics of tho bill utterly ignore tlie 



PRESIDENT TAFT. 



18 



very tremendous cuts that have been 
made in the iron schedule, which here- 
tofore has been subject to criticism in 
all Tariff bills. From iron ore, which 
was cut 75 per cent, to all the other 
items as low as 20 per cent, with an 
average of something like 40 or 50 per 
cent, that schedule has been reduced 
so that the danger of increasing prices 
through a monopoly of the business is 
very inuch lessened, and that was the 
chief purpose of revising the Tariff 
downward under Republican Protective 
principles. The severe critics of the 
bill pass this reduction in the metal 
schedule with a sneer, and say that the 
cut did not hurt the iron interests of 
the country. Well, of course, it did 
not hurt them. It was not expected to 
hurt them. It was expected only to 
reduce excessive rates, so that business 
should still be conducted at a profit, 
and the very character of the criticism 
is an indication of the general in- 
justice of the attitude of those who 
make it, in assuming that it was the 
promise of the Republican party to 
hurt the industries of the country by 
the reductions which they were to 
make in the Tariff, whereas it ex- 
pressly indicated as plainly as possible 
In the platform that all of the indus- 
tries were to be Protected against in- 
jury by foreign competition, and the 
promise only went to the reduction of 
excessive rates beyond what was 
necessary to Protect them. 

High Cost of Living Not Due to tfie Tariff. 

The high cost of living:, of which 50 
per cent is consumed in food, 25 per 
cent in clothing:, and 25 per cent in 
rent and fuel, has not been produced 
by the Tariff, because the Tariff has 
remained the same while the increases 
have gone on. It is due to the change 
of conditions the world over. Living 
has increased everywhere In cost — in 
countries where there is Free-Trade 
and in countries where there is Pro- 
tection—and that increase has been 
chiefly seen in the cost of food prod- 
ucts. In other words, ^ve have had to 
pay more for the products of the 
farmer, for meat^ for grain, for every- 
thing that enters into food. No^% cer- 
tainly no one vtill contend that Protec- 
tion has increased the cost of food in 
this country, ^vhen the fact is that we 
have been the greatest exporters of 



food products in the world. It is only 
that the demand has increased beyond 
the supply, that farm lauds have not 
been opened as rapidly as the popula- 
tion, and the demand has increased. 

I am not saying that the Tariff does 
not increase prices in clothing and in 
building and in other items that enter 
Into the necessities of life, but what I 
wish to emphasize is that the recent 
increases in the cost of living In this 
country have not been due to the 
Tariff. We have a much higher stand- 
ard of living in this country than they 
have abroad, and this has been made 
possible by higher income for the 
workingman, the farmer, and all 
classes. Higher wages have been 
made possible by the encouragement of 
diversified industries, built up and fos- 
tered by the Tariff, 

Wi/J Not Destroy Industries. 

Now, the revision downward of the 
Tariff that I have favored will not, I 
hope, destroy the industries of the 
country. Certainly it is not intended 
to. All that it is intended to do, and 
that is what I wish to repeat, is to put 
the Tariff where it will Protect indus- 
tries here from foreign competition, 
but will not enable those who will 
wish to monopolize to raise prices by 
taking advantage of excessive rates 
beyond the normal difference in the 
cost of production. 

If the country desires Free-Trade, 
and the country desires a revenue 
Tariff and wishes the manufacturers 
all over the country to go out of busi- 
ness, and to have cheaper prices at tlie 
expense of the sacrifice of many of 
our manufacturing interests, then it 
ought to say so and ought to put the 
Democratic party in power if it thinks 
that party can be trusted to carry out 
any affirmative policy in favor of a 
revenue Tariff. Certainly in the dis- 
cussions in the Senate there was no 
great manifestation on the part of our 
Democratic friends in favor of re- 
ducing rates on necessities. They 
voted to maintain the Tariff rates on 
everything that came from their par- 
ticular sections. If we are to have 
Free-Trade, certainly It can not be had 
through the maintenance of Repub- 
lican majorities in the Senate and 
House and a Republican administra- 
tion. 



14 



PRESIDENT TAFT. 



Duiy of a Member of Congress. 

And now tlie question arises, what 
was the duty of a Member of Con- 
gress who believed in a downward re- 
vision greater than that which lias 
been accomplished, who thought that 
the wool schedules ought to be re- 
duced, and that perhaps there were 
other respects in which the bill could 
be improved? Was it his duty be- 
cause, in his judgment, it did not fully 
and completely comply with the prom- 
ises of the party platform as he inter- 
preted it, and indeed as I had inter- 
preted it, to vote against the bill? I 
am here to justify those who answer 
this question in the negative. Mr. 
Tawney was a downward revisionist 
like myself. He is a low-Tariff man, 
and has been known to be such in 
Congress all the time he has been there. 
He is a prominent Republican, the 
head of the Appropriations Committee, 
and when a man votes as I think he 
ought to vote, and an opportunity such 
as this presents itself, I am glad to 
speak in behalf of what he did, not in 
defense of it, but in support of it. 

This is a government by a majority 
of the people. It is a representative 
government. People select some 400 
members to constitute the lower House 
and some 92 members to constitute the 
upper House through their legisla- 
tures, and the varying views of a ma- 
jority of the voters in eighty or ninety 
millions of people are reduced to one 
resultant force to take affirmative 
steps in carrying on a government by 
a system of parties. Without parties 
popular government would be abso- 
lutely impossible. In a party, those 
who join it, if they would make it ef- 
fective, must surrender their personal 
predilections on matters comparatively 
of less importance in order to accom- 
plish the good wliich united action on 
the most important principles at issue 
secures. 

Sfiou/d Maintain Party Solidarity. 

Now, I am not here to criticise those 
Republican Members and Senators 
whose views on the subject of the 
Tariff were so strong and intense that 
they believed it their duty to vote 
against their party on the Tariff bill. 
It is a question for each man to settle 
for himself. The question is whether 
he shall help maintain the party soli- 



daritj' for accomplishing its chief pur- 
poses, or whether the departure from 
principle in the bill as he regards it is 
so extreme that he must ^n conscience 
abandon the party. All I have to say 
is, in respect to Mr. Tawney's action, 
and in respect to my own in signing 
the bill, that I believed that the in- 
terests of the country, the interests of 
the party, required me to sacrifice the 
accomplishment of certain things in 
the revision of the Tariff which I had 
hoped for, in order to maintain party 
solidarity, which I believe to be much 
more important than the reduction of 
rates in one or two schedules of the 
Tariff. Had Mr. Tawney voted against 
the bill, and there had been others of 
the House sufficient in number to have 
defeated the bill, or if I had vetoed 
the bill because of the absence of a 
reduction of rates in the wool sched- 
ule, when there was a general down- 
ward revision, and a substantial one 
though not a complete one, we should 
have left the party in a condition of 
demoralization that would have pre- 
vented the accomplishment of purposes 
and a fulfillment of other promises 
which we had made just as solemnly 
as we had entered into that with re- 
spect to the Tariff. When I could say 
without hesitation that this is the best 
Tariff bill that the Republican party 
has ever passed, and therefore the best 
Tariff bill that has been passed at all. 
I do not feel that I could have recon- 
ciled any other course to my con- 
science than that of signing the bill, 
and I think Mr. Tawney feels the same 
way. Of course if I had vetoed the bill 
I would have received the applause of 
many Republicans who may be called 
low-Tariff Republicans, and who think 
deeply on that subject, and of all the 
Democracy. Our friends the Democrats 
would have applauded, and then 
laughed in their sleeve at the condition 
in which the party would have been 
left; but, more than this, and waiving 
considerations of party, where would 
the country have been had the bill 
been vetoed, or been lost by a vote? 
It would have left the question of the 
revision of the Tariff open for further 
discussion during the next session. It 
would have suspended the settlement 
of all our business down to a known 
basis upon which prosperity could pro- 
ceed and investments be made, and it 
would have held up the coming of 



PRESIDENT TAFT. 



15 



prosperity to this country certainly for 
a year and probably longer. These are 
the reasons why Mr. Tawney voted for 
the bill. These are the reasons why I 
signed it. 

Additional Reasons. 

But there are additional reasons why 
the bill ought not to have been beaten. 
It contained provisions of the utmost 
importance in the interest of this coun- 
try in dealing with foreign countries 
and in the supplying of a deficit which 
under the Dingley bill seemed inev- 
itable. There has been a disposition in 
some foreign countries taking advan- 
tage of greater elasticity in their sys- 
tems of imposing Tariffs and of making 
regulations to exclude our products 
and exercise against us undue discrim- 
ination. Against these things we have 
been helpless, because it required an 
act of Congress to meet the' difficulties. 
It is now proposed, by what is called 
the maximuin and minimum clause, to 
enable the President to allow to come 
into operation a maximum or penaliz- 
ing increase of duties over the normal 
or minimum duties whenever in his 
opinion the conduct of the foreign 
countries has been unduly discrim- 
inatory against the United States. It 
is hoped that very little use may be 
required of this clause, but its pres- 
ence in the law and the power con- 
ferred upon the Executive, it is 
thought, will prevent in the future 
such undue discriminations. Certainly 
this is most important to our export- 
ers of agricultural products and manu- 
factures. 

"Useless to Talk of Another Revision of 
the Tariff." 

Now, I think it is utterly'- useless, 
as I think it would be greatly distress- 
ing to business, to talk of another re- 
vision of the Tariff during the present 
Congress. I should think that it would 
certainly take the rest of this admin- 
istration to accumulate the data upon 
which a new and proper revision of 
the Tariff might be had. By that time 
the whole Republican party can ex- 
press itself again in respect to the 
matter and jDring to bear upon its Rep- 
resentatives in Congress that sort of 
public opinion which shall result in 
solid party action. I am glad to see 



that a number of those wlio thought 
it their duty to vote against the bill 
insist that they are still Republicans 
and intend to carry on their battle in 
favor of lower duties and a lower re- 
vision within the lines of the party. 
That is their right and, in their view 
of things, is their duty. 

It is vastly better that they should 
seek action of the party than that they 
should break off from it and seek to 
organize another party, which would 
probably ' not result in accomplishing 
anything more than merely defeating 
our party and inviting in the opposing 
party, which does not believe, or says 
that it does not believe, in Protection. 
I think that we ought to give the pres- 
ent bill a chance. After it has been 
operating for two or three years, we 
can tell much more accurately than we 
can to-day its effect upon the indus- 
tries of the country and the necessity 
for any amendment in its provisions. 

I have tried to state as strongly as 
I can. but not more strongly than I 
think the ife,cts justify, the importance 
of not disturbing the business inter- 
ests of this country by an attempt in 
this Congress or the next to make a 
new revision. 



In the Matter of Tariff Revision Has 
the Republican Party Kept Faith 
with the People? 

Speech of President Taft at the Lincoln 
Anniversary Dinner of the Republican 
Club of the City of New York, Feb- 
ruary 12, 1910. 

From the Congressional Record of February 14, 
1910. 

Mr. President, Gentlemen of tlie Re- 
publican Club, and Fellow-Guests: 
The birthday of the man whose mem- 
ory we celebrate to-night is an appro- 
priate occasion for renewing our ex- 
pressions of respect and affection for 
the Republican party, and our pledges 
to keep the part which it plays in the 
history of this country as high and as 
useful as it was during the adminis- 
tration of Abraham Lincoln. The 
trials which he had to undergo as 
President, the political storms which 
the party had to weather during the 
civil war, the divisions in the party 
itself between the radical antislavery 



36 



PRESIDENT TAFT. 



element and those who were most con- 
servative in observing the constitu- 
tional limitations, are most interesting 
reading-, and serve to dwarf and mini- 
mize the trials through which the Re- 
publican party is now passing, and re- 
store a sense of proportion to those 
who allow themselves to be daunted 
and discouraged in the face of a loss 
of popular confidence thought to be 
indicated by the tone of the press. 

In what respect has the Republican 
party failed in its conduct of the Gov- 
ernment and the enactment of laws to 
perform its duty? It was returned to 
power a year ago last November by a 
very large majority after a campaign 
in which it made certain promises in 
its platform, and those promises it has 
either substantially complied with, or 
it is about to perform within the pres- 
ent session of Congress. 

Let us take up these promises in 
order: 

In the Republican platform of last 
year, upon which the campaign was 
made, appears 

The Following Plank in Regard to the 
Tariff. 

The Republican party declares unequiv- 
ocally for the revision of the Tariff by a 
special session of Congress immediately 
following the inauguration of the next 
President, and commends the steps al- 
ready taken to this end in the work as- 
signed to the appropriate committees of 
Congress which are now investigating the 
operation and effect of existing schedules. 
In all Tariff legislation the true principle 
of Protection is best maintained by the 
imposition of such duties as will equal 
the difference between the cost of pro- 
duction at home and abroad, together 
with a reasonable profit to American in- 
dustries. We favor the establishment of 
maximum and minimum rates to be ad- 
ministered by the President under limi- 
tations fixed in the law, the maximum 
to be available to meet discriminations 
by foreign countries against American 
goods entering their markets, and the 
minimum to represent the normal measure 
of Protection at home, the aim and pur- 
pose of the Republican policy being not 
only to preserve, without excessive 
duties, that security against foreign com- 
petition to which American manufac- 
turers, farmers, and producers are en- 
titled, but also to maintain the high 
standard of living of the wage-earners of 
this country, who are the most direct 
beneficiaries of the Protective system. 
Between the United States and the Phil- 
ippines we believe in a free interchange 
of products, with such limitations as to 
sugar and tobacco as will afford adequate 
Protection to domestic interests. 

We did revise the Tariff. It Is Im- 



possible to revise the Tariff without 
awakening the active participation in 
the formation of the schedules of 
those producers whose business will be 
affected by a change. This is the in- 
herent difficulty in the adoption or 
revision of a Tariff by our representa- 
tive system. 

Nothing Was Expressly Said in the Plat- 
form that This Revision Was to Be a 
Downward Revision. 

The implication that it was to be 
generally downward, however, was 
fairly given by the fact that those who 
uphold a Protective-Tariff system de- 
fend it by the claim that after an in- 
dustry has been established by shut- 
ting out foreign competition, the do- 
mestic competition will lead to the re- 
duction in price so as to make the 
original high Tariff unnecessary. 

In the new Tariff there were 654 
decreases, 220 increases, and 1,150 
items of the dutiable list unchanged, 
but this did not represent the fair 
proportion iji most of the reductions 
and the increases, because the duties 
were decreased on those articles which 
had a consumption value of nearly 
$5,000,000,000, while they Avere in- 
creased on those articles which had 
a consumption value . of less than 
?1, 000, 000, 000. Of the increases the 
consumption value of those affected 
which are of luxuries, to wit, silks, 
wines, liquors, perfumeries, pomades, 
and like articles, amounted to nearly 
$600,000,000; while the increases not 
on articles of luxury affected but 
about $300,000,000, as against decreases 
on about $5,000,000,000 'of consumption. 
I repeat, therefore, that this was a 
downward revision. It was not down- 
ward with reference to silks or liquors 
or high-priced cottons in the nature 
of luxuries. 

// Was Downward in Respect to Nearly 
All Other Articles Except Woolens. 

which were not affected at all. Cer- 
tainly it was not promised that the 
rates on luxuries should be reduced. 
The revenues were falling off, there 
was a deficit promised, and It was es- 
sential that the revenues should be 
increased. It was no violation of the 
promise to ' increase the revenues by 
increasing the t>a.v in i"-«-uries. nro- 



PliESlDENT TAFT. 



vided there was downward revision on 
all other articles. The one substantial 
defect in compliance with the prom- 
ise of the platform was the failure to 
reduce woolens. Does that defect so 
color the action of the Republican 
party as to make it a breach of faith 
leading to its condemnation? I do not 
think so. Parties are like men. Re- 
visions are like the work of men — 
they are not perfect. The change 
which this Tariff effected was a 
marked change downward in the rate 
of the duties, and it was a recogni- 
tion by the party that the time had 
come when instead of increasing du- 
ties they must be decreased, when the 
party recognized in its platform, and 
in much of what it did, that the proper 
measure of Protection was the differ- 
ence in cost in the production of arti- 
cles here and abroad, including a fair 
profit to the manufacturer. There was 
a dispute as to what the difference is, 
and whether it was recognized in the 
change of all the duties downward. 
Particularly was this the case on the 
materials that entered into the manu- 
facture of paper and paper itself. The 
reduction on print paper was from $6 
to $3.75, or about 37 per cent. 

Newspaper Misrepresentation Because of 
the Paper and Pulp Schedule. 

There was a real difference of opin- 
ion on the question of fact whether 
the new duty correctly measured the 
difference in the cost of production of 
])rint paper a,broad and print paper 
here. It affected the counting-rooms 
of the newspapers of the country and 
invited the attention of the newspaper 
proprietors who had associated them- 
selves together like other interests for 
the purpose of securing a reduction of 
the Tariff. The failure to make a larger 
reduction showed Itself clearly in the 
editorial columns of a great number 
of the newspapers, whatever their par- 
ty predilection. The amount of mis- 
representation to which the Tariff bill 
in its effect as a downward revision 
bill was subjected has never been ex- 
ceeded in this country, and it will 
doubtless take the actual operation of 
the Tariff bill for several years to 
show to the country exactly what the 
legislation and its effect are. 

It is perhaps too early to Institute 



the fairest comparisons between the 
Payne-Aldrich bill and the bill which 
preceded it, but the Payne-Aldrich bill 
has been in operation now for six 
months and figures are at hand from 
which we may make a reasonable in- 
ference, first, as to whether it is a re- 
vision downward, and, second, as to 
its capacity for producing revenue; 
for It must be borne in mind that the 
passage of the law^ was demanded not 
only for the purpose of changing rates 
in their effect upon the industries of 
the country, but also for the purpose 
of increasing the revenues; and the 
success of the measure is to be judged 
by its results in both these respects. 

Marked Reductions in the Tariff Law of 
1909. 

The Bureau of Statistics is authority 
for the statement that during the first 
six months of the operation of the 
Payne law, which has just ended, the 
average rate of duty paid on all im- 
ports was 21.09 per cent ad valorem. 
The average rate of duty paid on all 
imports for the same six months for 
the four preceding years under the 
Dingley law w^as 24.03. This would 
show that the reduction in the Payne 
law is 2.94 per cent of the value of 
the goods, or that the rediiction below 
the previous Tariff rates is 12 per cent, 
showing a downward revision of this 
extent in those goods which are duti- 
able. But this is not all. Under the 
Payne law 51.6 per cent of the gross 
imports for the last six months have 
been entered free, while under the 
four years preceding for the same six 
months the free list amounted to 45.46 
per cent of the total importations; so 
there was not only a reduction of duty 
on imports of about 12 per cent, but 
also an enlargement of about the same 
percentage of the free list. 

Large Increases of Customs Revenue. 

For the production of revenue the 
Payne law is even more an improve- 
ment on the Dingley bill. During the 
six months that the Payne Tariff was 
in force, from August 5 to the night 
of February 5, the customs receipts 
amounted to $166,002,856.54. Under 
the Wilson-Gorman Tariff the semi- 
annual average was $83,147,625.90. Un- 
der the Dingley Tariff the semi-annual 



18 



PRESIDENT TAFT. 



average was $130,265,841.84. Under the 
Wilson Tariff the monthly average was 
?13,857,937.65. Under the Dingley Tar- 
iff the monthly average was $21,710,- 
973.64; while under the Payne Tariff 
the monthly average has been $27,667,- 
142.75, or 100 per cent greater than 
the monthly average under the "Wilson 
Tariff and 26 per cent greater than 
the monthly average under the Ding- 
ley Tariff. 

Of course as the country increases 
in population the customs receipts in- 
crease, but even considering the popu- 
lation, the increase in the Tariff re- 
ceipts has been marked. Under the 
Wilson Tariff the average annual cus- 
toms receipts per capita were $2.38; 
under the Dingley Tariff, $3.23; while 
under the Payne Tariff they were 
$3.71. 

For the six months that the Payne 
Tariff has been in force the total re- 
ceipts, both from customs and internal 
revenue, have been $323,899,231.91, 
w^hile the disbursements have been 
$332,783,283.08, showing an excess of 
disbursements over receipts of about 
$8,884,051.17, with no collection as yet 
from the corporation tax. For the 
corresponding period last year the ex- 
penditures exceeded the receipts by 
over $40,000,000. This showing indi- 
cates that under the present customs 
law the deficit will be promptly wiped 
out, and that to meet our normal ex- 
penditures we shall have ample reve- 
nue. 

I therefore venture to repeat the 
remark I have had occasion to make 
before, that 

The Present Customs Law /s the Best 
Customs Law that Has Ever Been 
Passed. 

And it is most significant In tliis 
that it Indicates on the part of the 
Republican party the adoption of a 
policy to change from an increase in 
duties to a reduction of them, and to 
effect an increase of revenues at the 
same time. 

The act has furnished to the Execu- 
tive the power to apply the maximum 
and minimum clauses in order to pre- 
vent undue discrimination on the part 
of foreign countrie.'^, and this is se- 
curing additional concessions In re- 
spect to Impositions on our foreign 
trade. 



The act has done justice to the Phil- 
ippine Islands by giving them Free- 
Trade with the United States. 

More than all this, the new Tariff 
act has provided for the appointment 
of a Tariff board to secure impartial 
evidence upon which, when a revision 
of the Tariff seems wise, we shall 
have at hand the data from which can 
be determined with some degree of 
accuracy the difference between the 
cost of producing articles abroad and 
the cost of producing them in this 
country. 

Functions of the New Tariff Board. 

The great difficulty in the hearing 
and discussion of the present Tariff 
bill was the absence of satisfactory 
and credible evidence on either side of 
the issues as to low or high Tariffs. 
The importer on the one hand and the 
manufacturer on the other were pres- 
ent to give their fallible judgments 
affected by their own pecuniary inter- 
ests as to the facts under investiga- 
tion. Men who "vvere struggling to 
find the truth were greatly perplexed 
by the conflicting testimonj'. 

The Tariff bill authorizes the Presi- 
dent to expend $75,000 in einploying 
persons to assist him in the adminis- 
tration of the maximum and minimum 
clause and to assist him and other 
officers of the Government in the ad- 
ministration of the Tariff law. I have 
construed this to mean that I may 
use the board appointed under this 
power not only to look into the foreign 
Tariffs, but also to examine the ques- 
tion with respect to each item in our 
Tariff bill, what the cost of produc- 
tion of the merchandi.se taxed is, and 
what its cost is abroad. This is not 
an easy task for impartial experts, 
and it requires a large force. I ex- 
pect to apply to Congress this year 
for the sum of $250,000 to organize a 
force tlirough which this investigation 
may go on, and the results to be re- 
corded for the use of the Executive 
and Congress when they desire to avail 
themselves of the record. In this way 
any subsequent revision may be car- 
ried on with the aid of data secured 
officially and without regard to its ar- 
gumentative effect upon the question 
of raising or lowering duties. 

Taken as a whole, therefore, I do 
not hesitate to repeat that the Repub- 



PUESIDICN r TAFT. 



10 



lican party has substantially complied 
with its promise In respect to the Tar- 
iff, and that it has set itself strongly 
in the right direction toward lower 
Tariffs and furnislied the means by 
wliich such lower Tariffs can be prop- 
erlj' and safely fixed. 

An Investigation by the Tariff board 
of the sort proposed will certainly 
take a full two years or longer. Mean- 
time the operation of the present Tar- 
iff promises to be consistent with the 
prosperitj' of the country and with the 
furnishing of sufficient funds with 
which to meet the very heavy but 
necessary expenditures of carrying on 
our great Government. 

An Aftermath of Agitation. 

Mr. Roosevelt aroused the country 
and the people to the danger we were 
in of having all our politics and all our 
places of governmental authority con- 
trolled in corporate interests and to 
serve the greed of selfish but power- 
ful men. During his two terms of 
office, by what almost may be com- 
pared to a religious crusade, he 
aroused the people to the point of pro- 
tecting themselves and the public in- 
terest against the aggressions of cor- 
porate greed, and has left public opin- 
ion in an apt condition to bring about 
the reforms needed to clinch his poli- 
cies and to make them permanent in 
the form of enacted law. 

But as an inevitable aftermath of 
such agitation, we find a condition of 
hysteria on the part of certain indi- 
viduals, and on the part of others a 
condition of hypocrisy manifesting it- 
self in the blind denunciation of all 
wealth and in the impeachment of the 
motives of men of the highest charac- 
ter, and by demagogic appeals to the 
imagination of a people greatly aroused 
upon the subject of purity and honesty 
in the administration of government. 
The tendency is to resent attachment 
to party or party organization, and to 
an assertion of individual opinion and 
purpose at the expense of party disci- 
pline. The movement is toward fac- 
tionalism and small groups, rather 
than toward large party organization, 
and the leaders of the party organiza- 
tion are subjected to the severest at- 
tacks and to the questioning of their 
motives without any adequate evidence 
to justify it. 



I am far from saying that the Re- 
publican party is perfect. No party 
which has exercised such power as it 
has exercised for the last seventeen 
years could be expected to maintain 
eitlier in its rank and file or in its 
management men of the purest and 
highest motives only. And I am the 
last one to advocate any halt in the 
prosecution and condemnation of Re- 
publicans, however prominent and 
powerful, whose conduct requires 
criminal or other prosecution and con- 
demnation. It should be well under- 
stood that with the Republican party 
in its present condition, with its 
various divisions subjected to the cross 
fire of its own newspapers and its own 
factions, any halt or failure on the 
part of those in authority to punish 
and condemn corruption or corrupt 
methods will be properly visited upon 
the party itself, ho^»ever many good 
men it contains. 

The Tariff in Relation to Increased 
Prices. 

We shall be called upon to respond 
to the charge in the next campaign 
that the Tariff, for which we are re- 
sponsible, has raised prices. If the 
people listen to reasonable argument, 
it will be easy to demonstrate that 
high pri-^es proceed from an entirely 
different cause, and that the present 
Tariff, being largely a revision down- 
ward, except with respect to silks and 
liquors, w^hich are luxuries, can not be 
charged with having increased any 
prices. But this will not prevent our 
Democratic friends from arguing on 
the principle of post hoc propter hoc, 
that because high prices followed the 
Tariff, therfore they are the result of 
it. And we must not be blind to the 
weight of such an argument in an 
electoral campaign. The reason for 
the rise in the cost of necessities can 
easily be traced to the increase in 
our measure of values, the precious 
metal gold, and possibly in some cases 
to the combinations in restraint of 
trade. The question of the Tariff must 
be argued out. The prejudice created 
by the early attacks upon the bill and 
the gross misrepresentations of its 
character must be met by a careful 
presentation of the facts as to the con- 
tents of the bill and also as to its ac- 
tual operation and statistics shown 



20 



SPEAKER CANNON. 



thereby. I believe we have a strong 
case if we can only get it into the 
minds of the people. Should disaster 
follow us and the Republican majority 
in the House become a minority in the 
next House, it may be possible that in 
the Democratic exercise of its power, 
the people of this country will see 
which is the party of accomplishment, 
which is the party of arduous deeds 
done, and which is the party of words 
and irresponsible opposition. 



"There is Only One Thing that Can 
Halt This Confident Move Forward 
to Give the Country Another Era 
of Prosperity Such as We Had 
from 1897 to 1907, and That Is 
Agitation for the Mere Purpose of 
Agitation, Without Any WelUcon- 
ceived Healthy Purpose in View." 
"=Speaker Cannon. 

Speech of Hon. Joseph G. Cannon, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
Delivered at Kansas City, Mo., November 
26, 1909. Presented t)y Mr. Hale, De- 
cember 7, 1909; Ordered to Lie on the 
Table and to be Printed. 

I sometimes wonder also whether 
the great body of the people who now 
live in this newer "W;est realize what a 
revolution has taken place in legisla- 
tion by Congress in the last half cen- 
tury since the election of Lincoln, or 
even what has been done since McKin- 
ley's election as President and the 
enactment of the Dingley law only 
twelve years ago. 

The Dingley Law's Success. 

The Fifty-third Congress, which en- 
acted the Wilson-Gorman Tariff law, 
appropriated $917,000,000, and Presi- 
dent Cleveland had to borrow $265,- 
000,000 to help out the revenues and 
meet the ordinary expenditures of the 
Federal Government. That Democratic 
Tariff law failed to produce the neces- 
sary revenue for even Democratic sim- 
plicity in administration. 

President McKinley was heralded as 
the advance agent of prosperity, and 
tlie Fifty-fifth Congress that enacted 
the Dingley law twelve years ago was 
called upon to provide for the ex- 
traordinary expenditures of the war 
with Spain. It had to appropriate 



nearly half a billion dollars to support 
our army and navy in that war, apply 
Avar taxes to meet a part of the ex- 
penditures and provide for the govern- 
ment of Porto Rico and the Philip- 
pines. It did so, and the Government 
also issued bonds, as it has always 
done for war expenditures; but the 
Dingley law proved to be the best rev- 
enue producer we have ever had, as 
the Wilson-Gorman law proved to be 
the poorest. The Dingley law, which 
was Protective, brought the total net 
ordinary revenues of the Federal Gov- 
ernment from $348,000,000 in the last 
3''ear of the Democratic administration 
to $405,000,000 in the first year of the 
Republican administration, and not- 
withstanding the repeal of the war 
taxes in 1901, cutting off the stamp 
taxes, and reducing the taxes on to- 
bacco and beer, the total net ordinary 
revenues under the Dingley law in 
1907 mounted up to $663,000,000, or the 
greatest revenues ever brought into 
the Federal Treasury. 

What was the cause? That law gave 
Protection, produced prosperity at 
home, expanded our foreign commerce, 
and enabled the Government to extend 
its operations to meet many of the as- 
pirations of the people who clamored 
for internal improvements, expansion 
of the army, modernizing of the navj-, 
protecting the forests, and developing 
the waste places in the arid region. 

So the development has gone for- 
ward for twelve years, and the Re- 
publican Sixtieth Congress appro- 
priated $2,000,000,000 where the Demo- 
cratic Fifty-thir'd Congress appro- 
priated less than $1,000,000,000. 

How did we spend it? Rebuilt the 
navy and reorganized the armj'' at a 
cost of $2,000,000,000; doubled the ap- 
propriations for the military and naval 
academies; diverted $50,000,000 for the 
revenues for the reclamation of arid 
land; quadrupled the appropriations 
for the Department of Agriculture; 
doubled the appropriations for the dip- 
lomatic service; appropriated $200,- 
000,000 for the construction of the Pan- 
ama Canal; more than doubled the ap- 
propriations for the Post-Oflfice Depart- 
ment, with $40,000,000 a year for rural 
free delivery, and reduced the national 
debt to less than it v/as before the 
election of McKinley and the war with 
Spain. 



SPEAKER CANNON. 



21 



Necessity for Revenue. 

Slngularlj^ the critics wlio insisted 
that the Tariff should be further low- 
ered are tlie same critics wlio are dis- 
satisfied because we have not gone 
faster and farther and appropriated 
more money. Gentlemen, we can not 
eat our cake and have it. If we want 
to return to the Tariff of 1894, known 
as the "Wilson law," we must also re- 
turn to the democratic simplicity of 
expending less than $500,000,000 a year, 
or go bankrupt. 

Since the enactment of the Dingley 
law in 1897 the estimates furnished by 
the executive departments have been 
greater than the appropriations by. 
more than $481,000,000. For the fiscal 
year 1909 the estimates were $71,000,- 
000 greater than the appropriations, 
and the Treasury deficit was more than 
$60,000,000; and for the present fiscal 
year the estimates were $59,000,000 
greater than the appropriations, while 
there is still a deficit in the Treasury, 
or greater expenditures than we have 
revenues to meet. 

I believe that the new Tariff law 
will Protect our industries and produce 
the necessary revenue for carrying 
forward the great policies upon which 
the Government has entered. 

The Payne Bill — Increases Revenues. 

The Monthly Summary of Commerce 
and Finance, issued by the Department 
of Cominerce and Labor, shows that 
for the months of August, September, 
and October under the new Tariff law 
there was a substantial increase in all 
imports over the imports of the same 
months in 1908. The increase in im- 
ports amounted to $73,000,000 over 
those for the same period in 1908 and 
$21,000,000 over the same period in 
1907, the greatest year under the Ding- 
ley law. Our exports for the same 
months increased over those for last 
year by $41,000,000 and $25,000,000 more 
than for the same period in 1907. This 
is an Indication of what we may ex- 
pect from the settlement of the Tariff 
question. Business that had halted 
has gone ahead with confidence, know- 
ing just what are the regulations 
which the Government imposes upon 
Importation. 

Danger in Agitation. 

Now, gentlemen, there is only one 



thing that can halt this confident move 
forward to give the country another 
era of prosperity such as we had from 
1897 to 1907, and that is agitation for 
the mere purpose of agitation, without 
any well-conceived healthy purpose in 
view. 

Insurgents Refuse to Accept Compromise. 

The Senators and Representatives 
who call themselves "insurgents" and 
who voted against the enactment of 
the Payne Bill, voted to increase or 
maintain the duties on the industries 
and products of their own States and 
sections. They were Protectionists for 
their own people, but they were op- 
posed to Protection for other people 
in other sections. 

Senator La Follette did not vote to 
increase the duties on lead and zinc, 
but he defended the Finance Commit- 
tee's schedules on those products in 
speeches, sajang they were not high 
enough, explaining, however, that he 
could not vote on the question because 
he said he had a personal pecuniary 
interest in the outcome. 

President Taft v. Senator Cummins. 

Senator Cummins declares that the 
Payne law is a repudiation of the Chi- 
cago platform. President Taft, when 
he signed the bill, made a public state- 
ment in which he said: 

There have been a great number of 
real decreases in rates and they consti- 
tute a sufficient amount to justify a 
statement that this bill is a substantial 
downward revision and a reduction of 
excessive rates. 

In his Winona speech the President 
declared: 

The Payne Tariff bill is the best Tar- 
iff bill the Republican party has ever 
passed. 

Senator Cummins declares that the 
issue from now until the national con- 
vention in 1912 is, Shall the men now 
in control of party destinies be per- 
mitted further to disregard plain party 
platforms? 

President Taft is the recognized 
leader of the Republican party and the 
great majority of Republicans are his 
followers. The President and the Re- 
publican majority in Congress co- 
operated in the legislation that has 
been written on the statute^ books. 
With whom did Senator Cummins co- 
operate? Let the record of the votes 



SPEAKER CAN.NUN. 



on this legislation from beginning to 
end decide. 

Mr. Bryan wants the war against 
the Republicans who enacted this leg- 
islation to go on; Senator Cummins 
also wants it to go on. When Lincoln 
found an army marching on the na- 
tional capital from the South and a 
body of sympathizers in the North en- 
couraging that army, he said it was 
difficult to determine which was the 
most threatening to the welfare of the 
nation. History repeats itself, and 
when Senators Cummins, La Follette, 
Bristow, and their so-called "pro- 
gressive" following join hands with 
Mr. Bryan in making war upon the Re- 
publican Members of Congress who 
passed the Tariff bill and upon the 
President who signed it, in that con- 
test I know of but one way to treat 
them, and that is to fight them just as 
we fight Mr. Bryan and his following. 

Protection in Spots. 

Senators La Follette and Bristow 
and the other so-called insurgents 
voted to increase the duty on bar- 
ley and barley malt for the reason 
that their constituents produce barley. 
In other words, these gentlemen who 
call themselves "insurgents" voted 
with the Republicans on schedules that 
Protected the products of their con- 
stituents and with the Democrats on 
schedules that Protected the products 
of other sections of the country. That 
was their right, but when they voted 
with the Democrats against tlie final 
enactment of the bill they voted to 
maintain the old schedules of the Ding- 
ley law and were not supporting the 
pledge of the Republican platforin or 
the pledges made by President Taft. 

There was not one member of the 
Republican majority who secured in 
the bill as enacted all tliat he had con- 
tended for. President Taft, Senator 
Aldrich, and myself all accepted more 
compromises tlian the so-called "in- 
surgents" were asked to accept. In 
Illinois we wanted free lumber, and my 
constituents wanted a duty on pe- 
troleum, because they have the great- 
est Independent oil-producing district 
in the world. "We were beaten, but we 
did not make our own Interests the 
only interpretation of the Republican 
pledge to revise the tariff. 



Cummins Alone Can fiead Himself Out of 
Party. 

Senator Cummins complains that I 
have read him out of the Republican 
party. Otlier sensitive gentlemen 
made the same complaint against Pres- 
ident Taft. The Senator does irie too 
much honor. I have not the authority 
to read any man out nor have I the 
disposition. I think I may say the 
same for the President. I have been a 
member of the Republican party since 
it was organized and I have never 
known of any man or group of men 
being read out of any party except by 
themselves. 

There was a minority in the party 
opposed to President Lincoln's conduct 
of the war, some because he did not 
move fast enough and others because 
he went too fast. Some of these people 
took themselves out of the party and 
supported General McClellan against 
Lincoln in 1864. There were Repub- 
licans who were dissatisfied with Pres- 
ident Grant's administration, and, not 
being able to control the party, they 
went out and supported Greeley in 
1872. 

In 1884 there was a minority that 
opposed the nomination of James G. 
Blaine, and after participating in the 
convention went out and supported Mr. 
Cleveland at the polls, aiding in his 
election. In 1896 there was another 
minority that opposed the adoption of 
the gold standard as a part of the Re- 
publican platform. They went out, or- 
ganized the silver party, and then 
joined the Democrats in support of Mr. 
Bryan. In the same year there was a 
minoritj^ in the Democratic party op- 
posed to Mr. Bryan's free-silver plat- 
form, and they supported McKinley, 
contributing to his election. 

Have a Riglit to Leave tfie Party. 

Those men who found themselves in 
the minority in their own party and 
too mucli committed to their ideas to 
accept the will of the majority, read 
themselves out of the parties to which 
they had formerly belonged. That was 
their right, and is the right of every 
man to-day. It is Senator Cummlns's 
right and Senator La Follette's right; 
but manly men of all political views 
have in the past exercised that right 
openly and have not gone about In 



SPEAKER CANNON. 



garments of martyrdom because they 
were not allowed to control the ma- 
jority. Those men in the past did not 
lose caste as citizens. They exercised 
an inalienable right to unite their ef- 
forts with any party that best repre- 
sented their views. It is the kind of 
independence that wins respect and 
that counts in our political contests. 

The Senator, I think, aptly recalled 
the story of the three tailors of Tooley 
street who met and prepared the pre- 
amble, "We, the people of England." 
That is a good illustration of the ego 
that often dofninates the minority 
everywhere, in town meetings, state 
legislatures. Federal Congresses, in 
churches, and in every place where 
men must co-operate. The tailors of 
Tooley street are ever with us, and 
when they can not be "We the people" 
in action as well as in the preamble, 
they take it out in resolving and de- 
claiming. 

An Example from History. 

There was one gigantic struggle in 
the Republican party which is memor- 
able as the greatest convention of 
strong and manly men that has ever 
been knoAvn in this country. That was 
the national Republican convention of 
18S0, when the followers of the "silent 
soldier" of Appomattox and the ad- 
mirers of the "plumed knight" from 
INIaine were pitted against each other. 
After many days of balloting the fol- 
lowers of Blaine and other candidates 
opposed to Grant united on General 
Garfield, who then received the major- 
ity vote of the convention and became 
the candidate for President. The fa- 
mous 306 ,went down with colors fly- 
ing, but not to don sackcloth or sulk 
in their tents. Those men had the 
same fidelity to the principles that 
governed the party that the old guard 
of Grant — to which many of them had 
belonged — had In war, and they 
marched out of that convention to take 
up the Garfield banner and carry it to 
victory. Let me commend the history 
of that one political battle to the Sen- 
ator. 

The Wolves Offer Protection. 

Mr. Clark knows Aesop's fables by 
heart and he has formulated much of 
his political philosophy on them. In 
one of these fables the wolves wanted 



the sheep to discharge the dogs and 
employ the wolves to defend them. Mr. 
Clark's Committee on Rules would 
have given the same protection to the 
Tariff bill that the wolves would have 
given to the sheep. The Republican 
majority of the House, with a clear 
majority in support of the Tariff bill, 
would have been helpless in any effort 
to register its will, because any reso- 
lution for a special rule to bring the 
bill to a vote would have had to be 
referred to the Committee on Rules 
dominated by Champ Clark, leader of 
the minority and leader of the efforts 
to prevent the enactment of the bill. 

To put it in another way, the nom- 
inal Republican majority in the House 
would have been destroyed, if all the 
minority had co-operated with the so- 
called "insurgent Republicans," and the 
very first pledge of the Republican na- 
tional convention and the Republican 
President, Mr. Taft, would have failed 
as completely as though a Democratic 
House of Representatives had been 
elected instead of a House with a nom- 
inal Republican majority of 46. 

The First Insurgent. 

The rules will remain substantially as 
they have been and are so long as we 
have a Congress, and the majority 
party, whether Republican or Demo- 
cratic, responsible to the people for 
legislation, will be their defenders. 
The opponents of the rules have al- 
ways been the men who did not feel 
responsibility for the transaction of 
the business laid before Congress. 
Those who denounced them in the past 
have lived to defend them as the wheel 
turned and they came into responsi- 
bility. 

Ever since history began the man in 
the minority has been seeking some 
device by which he could overcome the 
will of the majority, and we have a 
popular, if not absolutely reliable, rec- 
ord of one celebrated character ante- 
dating history whose fiat was, "Bet- 
ter to reign in hell than to serve in 
heaven." There was our first great 
insurgent, and he was pitched over 
the battlements of heaven. Since the 
creation of man there have been those 
at work on earth to encourage insur- 
rection against order, which is heav- 
en's first law. 



24 



CAXNOX. PAYNE. 



Payne Tariff Law Will Justify Itself. 

A word in conclusion: The country 
waited from March until August for 
the enactment of a Tarifif bill. Dur- 
ing that period, on account of the un- 
certainty, it has been conservatively 
estimated that the loss due to the halt- 
ing of business and production 
amounted to $10,000,000 a day. Since 
the enactment of the new law produce 
tion in our own country and imports 
from foreign countries have greatly 
increased, and day by day conditions 
are improving. The farmers, who 
comprise one-third of our population, 
are stepping high and some of them 
are riding in automobiles. In mine and 
factory as well as in transportation 
and commerce opportunities for em- 
ployment are daily growing better. 
The revenues of the Government are 
constantly increasing. The Payne 
Tariff law is not perfect — perfection 
resides in Deity alone — but I agree 
rnost heartily with Representative 
Payne, of New York, and with the 
President of the United States in his 
"Winona speech, that the new Tariff 
law is the best one ever passed under 
Republican leadership. 

Neither Bryan, Cummins, La Fol- 
lette, Bristow, or their followers claim 
that it can be changed during the com- 
ing four years, but they all agree in 
one thing, namely, that they -will agi- 
tate — and they are agitating — for ad- 
ditional Tariff legislation, and as the 
car of prosperity, drawn by 90,000,000 
people, moves on they are seeking to 
hinder its progress by criticism and 
denunciation, and this, too, within 
three months of its enactment. 

The demagogue we have always 
with us, and, as ours is a government 
of the people, the only way to dispose 
of him is to move on. The proof of 
the pudding is the eating of it, and I 
am perfectly willing to trust the ver- 
dict of a prosperous and happy people 
in the elections in November, 1910, 
after the new Tariff law has been In 
operation for over a year. 



Report of the House Committee on 
Ways and Means. 

i-rom the Congressional Record of March 23, 
jgog. 
Mr. PAYNE. With return of pros- 



perity, which the committee believe 
will follow a settlement of the Tariff 
question, and with a continuation of 
the Increase In revenue which has 
manifested itself during the present 
month, there is no doubt but that this 
bill will produce a largely Increased 
revenue to that estimated above. 

The committee thei-efore are abun- 
dantly justified in the belief that the 
bill will produce sufficient revenue 
after the year 1910, even if it does not 
during that fiscal year. Of course the 
latter is dependent upon the question 
of revival of business and trade. 

The Treasury, however, is amply 
protected by the authorized issue of 
$40,000,000 of the canal purchase bonds 
and the additional issue which can be 
made at any time to upward of forty 
millions in addition for excess of ex- 
penditures bej^ond the proceeds of the 
sale of bonds already made, and the 
appropriations for the year 1910. 

The committee has, from time to 
time during the past two years, been 
obtaining information for a revision of 
the Tariff, to have it in readiness when- 
ever such revision should be under- 
taken. During the past j'ear, and 
especially since the resolution of May 
16 last, the committee has had an ad- 
ditional force of clerks at "work, mainly 
of experts in Tariff matters, detailed 
from the different departments by the 
order of the President, obtaining and 
properly tabulatirg the information 
that came to the committee. They also 
prepared blanks early in the summer, 
which were sent to all of our consuls 
and consular agents seeking detailed 
information as to the cost of labor, 
manufacture, etc., in the foreign coun- 
tries. There has been a large number 
of responses to these inquiries, which 
have been properly filed and have been 
available for the use of the committee. 
This information has been particularly 
useful for comparison with the state- 
ments of wages paid abroad submitted 
in the public hearings before the com- 
mittee, in some cases confirm.ing the 
statements and In others contradicting 
the statements made before the com- 
mittee. 

The committee has also obtained val- 
uable information through the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor from 
special agents employed in that depart- 
ment who have reported from time to 



WK^Sl) 



time on the industries abroad, fre- 
quently furnishing- very detailed and 
valuable information. 

The committee opened up hearing's 
at Washington on the 10th day of No- 
vember, which continued daily until 
the 24th day of December, and every- 
one who desired an oral hearing- up to 
that time was granted the privilege. 
Since then briefs have been invited and 
have been filed. This information has 
been printed for the use of the com- 
mittee, and a carefully indexed edition 
will be distributed to the Members of 
the House, covering more than 8.000 
printed pages, and a large portion of it 
replete with information bearing di- 
rectly upon the questions involved. 

So, whatever may be said about this 
committee and about this bill, the 
country never can say that this com- 
mittee has not labored early and late 
from beginning to end to get all the 
information possible, and when they 
came to consider the bill paragraph 
by paragraph, to study that informa- 
tion in order to form a Tariff bill. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 

Maximum Tariff. 

In the first place we have provided 
a minimum and maximum Tariff. Our 
minimum Tariff is a Protective Tariff, 
built on the lines of our party platform 
and sometimes a little more than the 
party platform, because it is impossible 
to hold the scales evenl3% even with all 
the information available to your com- 
mittee on all these schedules; but it is 
the firm belief of your committee that 
if this first section, providing for a 
minimum Tariff, is put into effect and 
it becomes the universal Tariff law, as 
we believe it vi^ill, in the United States 
In their dealings with all foreign coun- 
nies, no business will suffer from un- 
fair and unequal competition from any 
foreign source, and every laborer in 
the United States will continue to re- 
ceive good and fair compensation for 
the work which he performs. We be- 
lieve it is a Protective Tariff. 

Then we provide that any country 
which gives us as fair trade relations 
as they give to any other country, 
which malces no discrimination against 
us which they do not make against the 
most favored nation under their con- 



ventions or Tariffs, shall receive this 
minimum Tariff provided for in sec- 
tions 1 and 2. But if they do not, If 
they do not give us an equal chance In 
their markets with any other nation, 
we do not propose to allow them to 
come into our market at this minimum 
rate. Our market is the market of tho 
world, for we are the greatest consum- 
ers, the greatest buyers of any nation 
on earth, consuming from one-third to 
one-half of the productions of the 
world over. 

Some gentlemen have pretended to 
get nervous over that. I have seen 
some items in the newspapers that this 
was a trick on the part of the commit- 
tee, that while we had reduced rates 
in the first section we had added 20 
per cent of duty in some instances to 
the Dingley rate, and in some in- 
stances to the free section, and that 
that was the joker; that the maximum 
rate was the rate on which the na- 
tions of the earth were to enter our 
markets. Did they stop to think that 
that great country of our cousins — the 
English — give us, as they give every 
other nation of the earth, equal trade 
relations, and from the very moment 
that this bill becomes a law until it is 
finally repealed Great Britain will be 
entitled to come into this country with 
its products precisely at the minimum 
rates in sections 1 and 2? 

Take her great rivals for our mar- 
ket, France and Germany; can they 
stand by and see Great Britain take up 
that trade and they do nothing? Will 
they enforce their maximum rate 
against us because we do not give 
them our minimum rate? Will the5' 
force our maximum rates on exports to 
this country and see Great Britain 
come in and take the trade of this 
market? Is there any man within the 
sound of my voice that supposes for 
a minute that France and Germany 
and the nations of the earth seeking 
our markets will not immediately avail 
themselves of the minimum rate which 
we offer in sections 1 and 2? 

We give them an opportunity to 
make their rates with us or pyt them- 
selves on an equality with Great Brit- 
ain. Now, you may call it a club, you 
may call it reciprocal trade, you may 
call it holding out the olive branch of 
peace in trade by giving them the 
minimum rates if tliey deal fairl.v with 



2G 



PAYNE. CRUMPACKER. 



us, but whatever you call it it is abso- 
lutely certain that the great nations of 
the earth will take the advantage 
which we give them under sections 1 
and 2 of this act to make their rates 
with us such as to get the rates pre- 
scribed in these sections. 

Protection and Tin Plate. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, again I want to 
talk about tin plate. Of course the 
history of the tin-plate industry is 
known and read of all men. Twenty 
years ago we put a duty on this article 
that was Protective, and we trans- 
ferred the industry from Wales to the 
United States, so far as the making of 
tin plate is concerned. There was a 
large cut in the duty in the Dingley 
bill, and after considering the evidence 
before the committee we have cut it 
again 20 per cent of the duty, reducing 
it from 1.5 to 1.2 cents per pound. This 
cut will not take away the tin-plate 
industry from the United States. If it 
would I never would have voted for it. 
And yet if we did take away the in- 
dustry by lowering the duty still 
further, these gentlemen on the other 
side would be satisfied, because it 
would increase the revenue because of 
the large importation of tin plate that 
would follow. But the people of this 
country condemn any such idea as 
that; they are in favor of still continu- 
ing the manufacture for our people of 
the tin plate now used in the United 
States. 



The Tariff and Trusts. 

From tJie Congressional Record of Marcli 25, 
1909. 
Mr. CRUMPACKER of Indiana. 
It is often charged that a Protective 
Tariff creates trusts. Trusts are com- 
binations growing out of the passion 
of avarice, and they are created to 
stifle competition and increase profits. 
Under this definition they are all bad 
and -violate a wise public policy. When 
a trust becomes good, it is no longer a 
trust. All combinations are not trusts. 
Trusts exist in Free-Trade countries 
as well as in countries that maintain 
Protective Tariffs. 

Relation of Protection to Labor. 
The vital purpose of a Protective 



Tariff is to increase opportunities for 
the employment of capital and labor In 
the development of the natural re- 
sources. The rate of wages and the 
standard of living in this country are 
higher than in any other country in 
the civilized world, and it is, and al- 
ways has been, the policy of the Re- 
publican party to maintain conditions 
under which the great army of intelli- 
gent and independent wage-earners 
will be able to maintain a high stand- 
ard of living, such as will enable them 
to provide well for theinselves and 
their families, and, by industry and 
frugality, to lay by a fair competence 
against the exigencies of age. This 
policy is necessary to the permanent 
progress of our country. Every hon- 
est, industrious, frugal toiler in this 
land ought to be able to earn enough 
money to establish and own a home, 
rear a family with all of the advan- 
tages that American society affords in 
the way of comforts, education, and 
culture, and provide for all the reason- 
able requirements of life. The object 
of government is not merely to en- 
courage the accumulation of wealth, 
but its prime purpose is to promote 
the building up of a strong, intelli- 
gent, self-reliant manhood and wom- 
anhood. [Applause.] Wealth is per- 
haps the greatest factor in promoting 
that end, but it is not the end. It Is 
onlj' a means. The leaders, industrial 
and political, for the next generation 
are being nurtured at this time, not in 
the palaces of luxury, but in the vir- 
tuous homes of the middle class and 
the wage-earners of the country, and 
it is of the greatest importance that 
the children in these homes shall be 
surrounded with conditions that will 
give them an opportunity to make the 
highest and the best development of 
the faculties with which they are en- 
dowed. The wages of labor, like all 
prices and values, tend to seek a com- 
mon level. If there was no Protection 
to American labor, the level of wages 
in this country would inevitably grav- 
itate to the level of wages in foreign 
countries. A Protective Tariff oper- 
ates like a dam in a river. The water 
level above the dam is kept at a 
higher stage than the level below It, 
but take the dam away and the water 
will find a common level. The level 
below the dam will not rise to that 
above, but the level above will inevi- 



COLE. FOHDNEY. 



27 



tably recede to that below. If the 
TarifE policy that has been maintained 
in this country for so many years, and 
which has so greatly blessed and ben- 
efited American labor, should be abol- 
ished, the rate of wages and the stand- 
ard of living in this country would 
become the same as in European coun- 
tries. I am unalterably opposed to any 
policy that will tend to reduce the 
high standard of wages and living that 
now prevail in the United States. 



Pledge of Tariff Revision. 

From the Congressional Record of March 26, 
1909. 
RALPH D. COLE, of Ohio. Mr. 
Chairman, we have heard much in the 
last few days concerning the rule un- 
der which we are to revise the Tariff. 
It is always best when we state our 
case to also state the law which ap- 
plies to that case. Gentlemen on the 
other side insist that there is a pro- 
vision in the Republican platform 
which declares in favor of revision 
downward. I have searched that in- 
strument in vain for any such declara- 
tion. It is true that during the cam- 
paign utterances of that kind were 
made from the public platform and the 
stump, but if you will examine the 
document carefully, no such declara- 
tion is there made. I wish to read, 
for the enlightenment of the commit- 
tee or the gentlemen on the opposite 
side, the rule under which the Repub- 
lican party has undertaken to revise 
the Protective Tariff: 

"In all Tariff legislation the true 
principle of Protection is best main- 
tained by the imposition of such duties 
as will equal the difference between 
the cost of reduction at home and 
abroad, together with a reasonable 
profit to American industry." 

Now, I want to call the attention of 
the committee to another fact. The 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clark] 
declared yesterday upon the floor of 
this House that there was not a greater 
friend of the mule in America than 
he. I want him to understand that the 
mule, although the emblem of the 
Democratic party, is no friend of 
theirs. [Laughter.] In 1898, at the be- 
ginning of the Dingley law, the mules 
In the United States were worth $92,- 
000,000. This year they are worth 
^2X1,000,000. Tli§ mules of thq United 



States, that should have remained 
steadfast in their party faith, violated 
every political obligation and increased 
fourfold in value during a Republican 
administration. [Applause on the Re- 
publican side.] 

MR. RANDELL, of Texas. My judg- 
ment is that the consuming power of 
the Nation is dependent upon its pro- 
ducing power. A nation that does not 
produce, a man that does not produce, 
can not consume. There are between 
seven and eight million workmen In 
the United States and perhaps eight or 
ten million farmers. There are 30,- 
000,000 American people to-day en- 
gaged in what is commonly known as 
"productive" enterprises. 

Of course the clerk working on a 
salary in the oflSce and Congressmen, 
perhaps, are consumers, might be list- 
ed among the consumers, and not pro- 
ducers, but let me tell you that the 
salary that the clerk gets in the ofllce 
is measured and dependent upon the 
wages the workingman gets in the 
factory. "When the consumers, so- 
called, of the United States deny a 
proper reward to the producer, they 
themselves will drag down their own 
interests. We all stand on a common 
level, and when you deny to the pro- 
ducer a proper compensation you are 
going to regulate the scale of salaries 
for the clerk and those commonly 
called "consumers" accordingly. I 
think that doctrine that has been 
preached in this country, that one class 
can stand alone, is wrong. We must 
all stand together or fall together, 
and the basis of our industrial struc- 
ture, of our commercial and social life, 
is the wages paid to the American 
producer. If you destroy the producer 
you can not assist the consumer. 



Party Declarations On the Tariff. 

From the Congressional Record of March z^, 
igog. 

JOSEPH W. FORDNEY, of Michigan. 
The American people at the last elec- 
tion were called on to make choice be- 
tween two propositions for revising 
the existing Tariff law. 

The Democratic party declared. In 
their platform, for an "immediate re- 
vision of the Tariff by the redug^QH 
of import dut.ie§," 



28 



FORDNEY, 



The irlepublican party declared — 

"unequivocally for the revision of the 
Tariff by a special session of Congress 
immediately following the inaugura- 
tion of the next President." 

And It further declared that — 

"In all Tariff legislation the true 
principle of Protection is best main- 
tained by the imposition of such duties 
as will equal the difference between 
the cost of production at home and 
abroad, together with a reasonable 
profit to American industries, and the 
benefits that follow are best secured 
by the establishment of maximum and 
minimum rates, * * the minimum to 
represent the normal measure of Pro- 
tection at home" — 

And— 

"the maximum to be available to meet 
discriminations by foreign countries 
against American goods entering their 
markets, the aim and purpose of the 
Republican policy being not only to 
preserve, without excessive duties, that 
security against foreign competition to 
which American manufacturers, farm- 
ers, and producers are entitled, but also 
to maintain the high standard of living 
of the wage-earners of this country, 
who are the most direct beneficiaries 
of the Protective system." 

The American people, by an over- 
whelming majority, decided in favor of 
the Republican plan for and manner of 
Tariff revision. Therefore, Mr. Chair- 
man, the Republican platform is our 
chart and compass, and I for one shall 
be guided and governed by it abso- 
lutely. Indeed, I am frank to say that 
had I not been fully in accord with it 
and willing to subscribe to it without 
qualification I could not and would not 
have accepted a seat in this House at 
the hands of an electorate whose pro- 
fession of political faith it embodies. 

Mr. Chairman, the bill presented by 
the committee is not perfect — no Tariff 
ever was and, as human knowledge is 
limited and human judgment is falli- 
ble, I assume none ever will be — but, 
as I have before said, this bill, taking 
into consideration all the difficulties 
and perplexities surrounding the for- 
mation of a Tariff law covering 4,000 
items, to be operative upon and touch- 
ing the industries and daily life of 
90.000,000 of people, and excepting the 
errors and omissions to which I have 
referred and which I hope will be cor- 
rected before final passage, I declare 
as my deliberate judgment that this 
hill will meet the requirements of 
present existing business condition.s 
;ind tlie expectation of the American 



people, and not onls?' bring to this 
country a return of the prosperity 
which Ave enjoyed before the late 
panic, but a sufllcient revenue to meet 
the expenses of the Government, thus 
justifying the confidence placed In the 
Republican party by the voters of the 
country. [Applause.] 

Tariff On Lumber. 

Now, the great States of Iowa and 
Minnesota and the great prairie States 
of the countrj^ are here to-day com- 
plaining about the reinoval of the duty 
on hides. Gentlemen from those 
States, hides are the finished product 
of j^our farmers. I am frank to say 
that hides went on the free list against 
my earnest protest. [Applause.] 

My friend, when you come and ask 
Protection on your finished product and 
Free-Trade on the things you wish to 
buy you are inconsistent. But that is 
human nature. I have a letter from 
a man in Moline, 111., in which he said 
he was a manufacturer of farming Im- 
plements, and especially plows, and he 
said he wanted the duty removed on 
lumber and removed from iron and 
steel and coal. But I say to you, my 
friend, that the products of the factory 
in the Middle West demand and must 
have the highest measure of Protection 
in order to pay decent wages to our 
laborers. 

Great goodness! How long was that 
man's foresight? He could not see 1 
inch beyond the end of his nose. He 
forgot the 800,000 men employed in the 
lumber camps of this country. [Ap- 
plause.] He forgot the hundreds and 
thousands of men in the iron mines, 
the rolling mills, and the coal mines. 
He forgot all about the welfare of the 
miners hundreds of feet below the sur- 
face of the earth digging coal to get 
bread and butter for their wives and 
little children and who want some of 
the comforts. Ah, any man that will 
(5ome and demand Free-Trade on his 
raw material, which is his neighbor's 
finished product, and Protection on his 
finished product is inconsistent. 

In the revision of the Tariff, I want 
to say to you, there was a dif- 
ference of opinion at times between 
the Republican Members as to how 
much reduction or whether any should 
be made In certain schedules. My 
friend from Missouri [Mr. Clark] dia 



FORDNEY. 



29 



me the lionor to tell the absolute truth 
about me. I sweat blooJ evoi-y tiine 
they reduced a schedule. [Laughter.] 
Because, as Mr. Clark has said, if they 
had done me the honor to let me write 
this Tariff bill I would have made it 
almighty short, and in deference to 
him it would have been almighty sweet 
to American citizens. I would not per- 
mit any article that can be produced In 
this country to have the duty upon it 
made so low that it could be produced 
abroad and come into this country and 
be sold at a price that would bring- 
starvation wages to the man who gives 
his brawn and brain to the making 
of it. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] 

Now, I want to say this to you: I 
know of no interest in the United 
States that is prodvxcing- an article for 
consumption on which I want to see 
the duty reduced to a point that the 
foreigner can come in and enjoy our 
markets and take them away from the 
laboring men, or deprive them of their 
right to produce that article in this 
countrJ^ Now, my friend Clark did 



me simple justice yesterday in stating 
to the country that I was a stand- 
patter on the Tariff question. 

My friend Clark is one of the best 
fellows that ever lived. He said to me 
one day, and I believed him and be- 
lieve him now. 

"Fordnej-, if Congress would per- 
mit you and me to make this Tariff 
bill, I believe we would make one that 
both sides of the House would vote 
for." 

[Laughter.] 

Protection for the South. 

I believe I could have persuaded my 
friend to be a Protectionist if we had 
been accorded that great honor. But 
whether that is right or whether it is 
wrong-, I want to say to the gentle- 
man that the industries of the South 
are of great importance to the people 
of that country. Cotton is one of the 
greatest, amounting in voluine to more 
than $450,000,000. I would have, been 
pleased to see the duty on imported 
cotton fabrics increased. 

And those imported goods, to a very 
large extent, were naade in Europe 



The total importation of all manufactures of cotton last year, dutiable $73,059,548 93 

Cotton and cotton waste, not dutiable 20,791,141.00 

Total $93,850,689.93 

Duty collected, $38,999,267.30. 



from cotton raised in the United States, 
exported to Europe, there converted 
into the finished product by cheap la- 
bor — receiving-, especially in Belgium, 
an average of the measly sum of 18 
cents per day — and brought back to 
the United States, and after paying the 
rates of duty fixed by law on such im- 
ports, in some cases as high as 45 per 
cent ad valorem, and also paying trans- 
portation both ways, are sold upon our 
markets below the cost of production 
of the same fabrics manufactured in 
this country. It would have pleased 
me to see the duty on this class of 
goods materially increased. 

I woiild also have been highly pleased 
to see a paragraph in this bill provid- 
ing- for a duty on long-staple cotton. 
It is a growing and important industry 
in the South, and needs Protection to 
capital and labor to guarantee suc- 
cess. One hundred million pounds 
were imported in 1907. 

Fifteen years ago, and before the 
construction of cotton factories in the 



South, cotton sold at 5 cents per 
pound, and at that time 10,000,000 bales 
of cotton brought not to exceed $300,- 
000,000. The producers of cotton at 
that time were not at all prosperous. 
On the other hand, they gave a great 
deal of labor for the money received 
for their crop, and were poor. 

Cotton factories were built in thp 
South, and immediately there became 
competition for raw cotton between 
the mills of the South and of the 
North and in Europe,; and while the 
price of cotton is now somewhere 
about 10 cents per pound, it brought 
13 cents per pound less than two years 
ago. So that, for the same labor and 
outlay, the cotton raisers of the South 
are receiving $600,000,000 for 10,000,000 
bales of cotton, as compared with half 
that amount fifteen years ago. 

What Protection Has Done for Southern 
Industries. 

There are 10.500.000 spindles now op- 



30 



FORDNEY. 



erated in the cotton mills of the South 
and over 15,000,000 in the North, yet 
the duty on imported cotton fabrics is 
not sufficiently high to bring- about 
conditions to enable the manufacturing 
at home of all the cottons we use. The 
establishment of these factories has di- 
verted from the farm a large number 
of employees, thus finding a place in 
the factories for the surplus labor on 
the farm. This labor so employed in 
the factory also consumed large quan- 
tities of other farm products, such as 
vegetables and meat, and creates a 
wider market for various farm prod- 
ucts. The money paid to this labor 
goes to the South, which would not go 
there were it not for the cotton mills. 
Cotton is the predominating product of 
the South, and therefore should receive 
its fair share of Protection along with 
the products of other States. [Ap- 
plause.] 

Oh,- gentlemen, such a condition 
should not exist; and I would like to 
see our Tariff laws so high that cotton 
goods of no foreign country could en- 
ter our markets and make the shirt 
that is worn on the back of the man 
in Mississippi producing the raw cot- 
ton. [Applause.] Such goods ought to 
be made by American labor. 

Mr. BARTLETT, of Georgia. Is it 
not a fact that in this bill you have 
reported it reduces the Tariff on arti- 
cles made in the South and raises the 
duties on articles made in the North? 

Mr. FORDNEY. I do not think that 
is right. As before stated, long-staple 
cotton is a growing industry in the 
South. Last year there were 100,000,000 
pounds of long-staple cotton imported 
into the United States, 78,000,000 
pounds of which came from Egypt. 
I would like to see a duty on long-sta- 
ple cotton of at least 5 or 8 cents per 
pound to help that industry in the 
South. I think it needs it, and it is 
my earnest wish that before this bill 
becomes a law there will be a duty of 
some kind on long-staple cotton. 

The capital invested in manufactur- 
ing in the South has increased from 
$1,153,000,000 in 1900 to more than 
$2,100,000,000 in 1908; and the products 
of the factories of the South have in- 
creased from $1,403,000,000 in 1900 to 
the magnificent sum of $2,600,000,000 in 
1908. The population of the South has 
increased from 23.500.000 in 1900 to 27,- 



QOO.OOO in 1908. In fact, the Southern 
States are to-day increasing rapidly in 
wealth." 

The lumber cut in the South in 1900 
was less than 14,000,000,000 feet, and in 
1908 it was nearly 20,000,000,000 feet. 
Fifteen years ago the magnificent for- 
ests of the South were practically val- 
ueless, but the capital of the North, 
combined with that of the South, has 
opened up the lumbering industry of 
that country, and to-day it is one of 
the predominating industries. 

The railway mileage of the South 
has increased from 52,600 miles In 1900 
to 67,200 miles in 1908; and the true 
value of all property in the South has 
increased from about $14,000,000,000 in 
1900 to more than $20,000,000,000 in 
1908. It can not be denied that under 
our present Protective Tariff laws the 
South has advanced in wealth and com- 
mercial activity quite equal to the ad- 
vancement in the North. 

Cuban Reciprocity. 
I think Cuban reciprocity was the ? 
most unfavorable trade agreement ever 
made between the United States and 
any other country in the world. Let 
me say briefly that I have taken the 
record of our exports and imports to 
and from Cuba for five years from the 
adoption of Cuban reciprocity, and here 
is the startling statement: The bal- 
ance of trade against us for the five 
years prior to the adoption of Cuban 
reciprocity averaged $15,652,000 per 
year. Under Cuban reciprocity, which 
some gentlemen have lauded to the 
skies, the balance of trade against us 
for five years has reached the enor- 
mous sum of $43,781,000; and in addi- 
tion thereto, in taking on an increased 
amount of imports from Cuba, the re- 
duction of our revenues on goods com- 
ing from Cuba has amounted to more 
than $60,000,000. I believe, my friends, 
that the sooner we repeal Cuban reci- 
procity the better for the people of the 
United States. [Applause.] 

Sugar from the Philippines. 

Now, one word and I will close. We 
are trying to do something for the 
Philippine Islands. Let me tell you 
what the Philippine Islands are doing 
for us. I will stand by the bill and the 
compromise on sugar, the free importa- 
tion of 300,000 tons per year from the 



B'ORDNEY. 



81 



Philippine Islands into the United 
States. 

I am willing to stand by that, and 
the sugar men of the country whom I 
have consulted are also satisfied. For 
the last ten years there has been tur- 
moil in this House over the duty on 
sugar. There never has been a ses- 
sion of Congress in the ten years that 
I have had the honor to be a Member 
of this House that the question of the 
reduction of the duty on sugar has not 
been advocated in some manner or oth- 
er, and our present good President, Mr. 
Taft, has agreed in my presence that 
during his administration he will not 
permit, as far as he can avoid it by 
his action, any further reduction in 
the sugar schedule if we will accept 
this agreement and let the 300,000 tons 
to come in free from the Philippines. 
Last year the Philippine Islands ex- 
ported $60,000,000 worth of stuff, and 
fifteen millions, or 25 per cent, came 
to the United States. She imported 
$30,000,000 w^orth of stuff, and she took 
the measly sum of $5,000,000 worth 
from the United States. It is costing 
us. If I am correctly informed, $14,000,- 
000 per year to maintain peace in the 
Islands, and if you will look up the 
record you will find that our pension 
rolls amount to $23,000,000 annually for 
Spanish war soldiers. Great goodness! 
After doing all this for the Philippine 
Islands, she buys only one-sixth of her 
Imports from us — the measly sum of 
$5,000,000 of our products — and then 
comes back and asks us for more, and 
complains because we reserve the right 
to tax in excess of 300,000 tons of su- 
gar and tobacco coming in here above 
the limited amount, 

I say the Filipinos have nothing to 
complain of after what the Govern- 
ment of the United States has done 
for them. As the humorist of the 
House last year, Adam Bede, said in 
speaking of the Philippine Islands: 

"So far as I am concerned, I would 
be glad to change them for Ireland and 
raise our own policemen." 

[Laughter and applause.] 

Has There Been a Reasonable Develop- 
ment of the Beet-Sugar Industry in the 
United States Since the Passage of the 
Dingley Law? 

When the Dingley Tariff was passed 
In 1897 there were but six sugar fac- 



tories in the United States, and the 
combined output was 37,500 long tons a 
year. There are now 65 beet-sugar 
factories in the United States, with a 
combined output in 1908 of 492,969 long 
tons (Willett & Gray's Statistical Trade 
Journal of January 7, 1909). Theso 
factories are scattered throughout 16 
States, as follows: One in Arizona, 8 
in California, 16 in Colorado, 4 in Ida- 
ho, 1 in Illinois, 1 in Iowa, 1 in Kan- 
sas, 16 in Michigan, 1 in Minnesota, 
1 in Montana, 1 in Nebraska, 1 in New 
York, 1 in Ohio, 1 in Oregon, 5 in 
Utah. 1 in Washington, and 4 in Wis- 
consin. The increase in the production 
of beet sugar since the passage of the 
Dingley law has been over 1,300 per 
cent. 

The fixed investment of the beet- 
sugar business has reached a total of 
nearly $100,000,000, and the American 
farmers and laborers received in 1908 
over $40,000,000 from the factories. 
The production of sugar from cane 
grown in the Southern States in 1908 
was 390,888 tons (Willett & Gray's Sta- 
tistical Trade Journal of January 7, 
1909). The total, consumption of do- 
mestic sugar in the United States in 
1908 was nearly 900,000 tons. 

Intent and Principle of Protection. 

Cheap cost of living and cheap men 
can never be made the basis of econo- 
mic progress. Cheap production means 
cheap labor; cheap labor means low 
prices; low prices means disaster to 
American industry. There never has 
been, and there never will be, a time 
when labor received starvation wages 
that the American people were or will 
be prosperous. The business prosper- 
ity of this or any other country de- 
pends, to a very great measure, upon 
the purchasing power of the masses of 
the people, and what is true of one in- 
dustry is also true of another Industry. 
When high prices for farm and manu- 
factured products and American labor 
prevail, prosperity also prevails. 

A man at work is certainly the most 
valuable asset of a nation. Idle men, 
consuming and not producing, burn 
the candle at both ends, and are worse 
than worthless. Individuals can not 
make conditions under which our In- 
dustries maj' be successfully conducted. 
Lawmakers must create the conditions. 
The duty of the lawmaker is to shelter 



S2 



FORDNEY. LONGWORTIL 



industries from disastrous competition 
from outsiders, and to encourage and 
stimulate present and build up new in- 
dustries. A Protective Tariff is in the 
nature of a wall around our garden to 
Protect the worker and his product 
from foreign intrusion. 

The intent and principle of a Pro- 
tective Tariff law is none other than 
to foster capital and labor at home. 
American markets are the best mar- 
kets in the world for American prod- 
victs, and great care should be taken in 
the enactment of laws to Protect 
American industry from foreign com- 
petitive products. Domestic industries 
are none too prosperous to-day, and 
any revision of our Tariff laws that 
would encourage greater foreign im- 
ports would be the most unwise act 
possible for Congress to perform. 

It is my belief that the strongest de- 
mand for a revision downward of our 
Tariff schedules comes from men of 
selfish motives, or men not thoroughly 
Informed as to the true situation as to 
the inactivity in some lines of indus- 
try, largely caused by too much gossip 
about Tariff revision. 

An equitably arranged Tariff means 
no willfully idle men. On the other 
hand, it means stability to both capital 
and labor, and is our greatest safe- 
guard to Americans against ruinous 
foreign competition. 



The Tariff Question in its Relation to 
Political Parties. 

From the Congressional Record of March ^T> 
1909. 
NICHOLAS LONGWORTH, of Ohio. 
This bill, Mr. Chairman, is the prac- 
tical fulfillment of the pledge made 
eight months ago by the Republican 
party in convention assembled at Chi- 
cago. "We are here to deliver the 
goods. The Republican party have 
been in control of the Government of 
this Nation almost continuously since 
the '^'/"■^"'W'ar, and it is because they 
^:.^yed square with the people, 
rnis practically continuous control of 
government affairs can be well illus- 
trated by a story we have sometimes 
heard of the school teacher who had a 
class of fifty boys, whom she was in- 
structing in the rudiments of Ameri- 
can history. She told them that every 
little boy born In this country had 



some day a chance to be President of 
the United States; and at the conclu- 
sion of her remarks she asked overy 
boy who thought that he might some 
day be President to hold up his right 
hand. Forty-nine hands went up. To 
the lone boy that had made no sign 
she said: "Johnnie, don't you think 
you will ever be President of the Uni- 
ted States?" and he 'said, "No, ma'am; 
I can't. I am a Deinocrat." [Laugh- 
ter.] 

In a speech delivered last December, 
after the election, at the Ohio Society, 
in New York, the President spoke as 
follows about the Tariff: 

"Now, the most important plank, or 
at least the most pressing plank, is that 
declaring for a revision of the Tariff 
at an extra session to be called as 
early as possible after the 4th of 
March. That plank fixed the standard 
by which that revision shall be gov- 
erned. It declares that the Tariff shall 
be revised on principles of Protection, 
and then the principle of Protection is 
defined by stating that the Tariff rates 
are measured by the difference between 
the cost of production abroad and the 
cost of production here, embracing a 
reasonable profit to the manufacturer. 
Now. what that means, as I under- 
stand it, is that the cost of production 
in both places includes a reasonable 
profit or interest on capital; that is. 
you include in the cost abroad at least 
the cost of raw material, the cost of 
labor, interest on capital, or the profit 
usual in the foreign country; and so on 
this side you include the cost of ma- 
terial, the price of labor, and also th& 
profit usually earned in this country by 
manufacturers. The difference between 
the cost abroad and that at home is the 
proper duty. It means that the Con- 
gress shall make every effort to deter- 
mine the difference thus constituted 
and then fix the Tariff accordingly." 

Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. Does not 
the gentleman think that the declara- 
tion of the Republican platform want- 
ing the cost of labor equalized and 
also a reasonable profit would turn 
Congress into an Insurance company 
for manufacturers and leave the rest 
of the people to take care of them- 
selves? 

How to Determine Cost of Production. 

Mr. LONGWORTH. I have never 
thought tliat that meant in any sense 
a proposition to Insure, as the gentle- 
man has stated. I do not see how you 
can determine the cost of producing 
any article except on the basis on 
which it is manufactured. No man ft 
going into any business or can stay In 
any business in which he can sell his 



LOXGWORTII. FOCHT 



J?3 



article onlj- at the mill cost of produc- 
tion. I understand that basis is the 
one adopted by this committee — in de- 
termining- or trying to arrive at the 
cost of production to include a reason- 
able profit In estimating- that cost — 
and I am perfectly "willing to say that 
by so much, perhaps, as the wages of 
the American labor exceed the wages 
of any other country, just so much 
are our manufacturers at home en- 
titled to profits at least as great or 
greater than their competitors abroad. 

The Democratic party also promised 
a speedy revision of the Tariff, but that 
party laid down only one rule. It 
mentioned specifically only wood pulp, 
print paper, lumber, timber, and logs, 
and made the general declaration that 
all articles entering into competition 
with trust-controlled products should 
be placed upon the free list. 

The Republican party always has 
and always will favor Protection, but 
we do not favor rates so high as to 
shelter monopolies and amount in ef- 
fect to prohibition. That is my con- 
struction of the Republican platform. 

Not a High Ad Valorem BilL 
Mr. LONG WORTH. Mr. Chairman, to 
show the utterly flimsy basis of the 
statement that this is a high ad va- 
lorem bill, I might merely call atten- 
tion to the fact that the ad valorem 
rate of Great Britain is 77.11 per cent, 
and the per capita from customs in 
Great Britain in 1905 was 4 per cent 
and with us in this country about 3. 
Now, to take a concrete example, the 
•sugar schedule, according to this re- 
port, is advanced on the ad valorem 
from 61.13 per cent to 61.39, and yet 
the only two things we did in the su- 
gar schedule were, in tlie first place, 
to reduce the differential on sugar, and. 
In the second place, to admit Philip- 
pine sugar free; and the ad valorem 
shows an increase, because we put on 
the free list those articles which for- 
merly came in and were considered 
dutiable. 



Tariff On Coal. 

"^rom the Congressional Record of March 27, 

1909. 

BENJAMIN K. FOCHT, of Pennsyl- 

anit.. Mr. Chairman, a great philoso- 

^r and publicist, and former Speaker 



of this House, Thomas B. Reed, in dis- 
cussing the Tariff, once declared that 
he cared not for pedantic maxims, nor 
for theory, nor for how the proposition 
might sound, or how it would look; 
what he wanted to know was. How 
does it work? 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe the 
Tariff enactments by the Republican 
party have all worked out well. I pro- 
pose to vote for this measure, as pre- 
sented by the Committee on Ways and 
Means, but Mr. Chairman, I wish to call 
attention to one paragraph in that bill 
to which I am obliged to raise objec- 
tion. 

It is proposed to take the duty from 
hides for the reason that we do not 
produce enough to supply the consum- 
ers. I also find that it is proposed to 
take the Tariff from bituminous coal, 
when it is known to every Member of 
this House that we produce bitumin- 
ous coal in nearly every State in the 
Union. The propositions seem to be 
absolutely contradictory, and inasmuch 
as that will impose disaster, if not 
complete ruin, on the operators of my 
district, if I have no other opportunity 
than this, I desire to enter my protest 
against taking the Tariff from bitu- 
minous coal. 

In attempting the important task of 
revising the Tariff, an undertaking the 
effects of which will be so far-reaching 
that the keenest prophet will hardly 
venture to be too precise in his pre- 
dictions, it will be the part of wisdom 
not to lose sight of the landmarks that 
indicate the economic progress of the 
United States ever since the beneficent 
policy of Protection has blessed both 
the manufacturer and the workingman. 
By virtue of the operations of the 
Protective Tariff, we have attained a 
degree of national opulence never 
dreamed of fifty years ago. Before 
that time we were almost wholly an 
agricultural people. To-day we are a 
nation of manufacturers than whom 
the world knows no greater. The 
product of our factories in the iir^arre- 
gate is the marvel of the world, 
der the Republican policy of Protec'^- 
tion the wealth of the country has in- 
creased nearly sixfold; its foreign 
trade, threefold; the value of manufac- 
tured products, nearly sevenfold; wag- 
es in manufacturing establishments, 
nearly sixfold; the number of wage- 
earners more than three-fold; and our 



FOCHT. 



rnileag-o of railroads more than six- 
fold. When the Republican party came 
into power our wealth per capita was 
about one-third of what it is now. 
Then the balance of trade against us 
was something- like $20,000,000 a year. 
For the j-ear 1908, our imports were 
?1, 116, 449, 681, and our exports, $1,728,- 
668,188, a balance in our favor of $612,- 
218,507. 

Hold On to a Good Thing. 

While, of course, a reversal of such 
a policy would be almost national sui- 
cide, and does not enter the imagina- 
tion of any one save the most hare- 
brained Free-Trader, even a serious 
modification of it would spell ruin to 
a number of important domestic indus- 
tries. I do not hesitate, Mr. Chair- 
man, to admit that I am fixed in my 
belief that there can not be put into 
successful operation Free-Trade be- 
tween the nations of the earth until 
labor and other conditions are equal- 
ized. Far better wait for the eleva- 
tion of the European standard than 
lower our own. I believe when you 
have a good thing you ought to keep 
it. All this talk about it being neces- 
sary to reduce our Tariff rates in order 
to enable us to acquire new markets 
for our manufactured products is, in 
my opinion, the merest moonshine. 
Other nations who have become con- 
verted to the doctrine of Protection do 
not seem to be impressed with that 
sort of argument. Germany has a stiff 
Protective Tariff, and yet she is giving 
Free-Trade Great Britain, with all the 
latter's commercial prestige, the clos- 
est rub in the competition for foreign 
trade which that nation has ever expe- 
rienced. France is not moved by any 
altrui.stic folderol when she raises her 
Tariff rates in such manner as to dis- 
criminate almost viciously against the 
products of the United States. Bis- 
njarck, the greatest statesman Europe 
has known in the last half century — 
not excepting even Theodore Roosevelt 
— and who was most accomplished in 
the game of international politics, used 
to say that dealing with the Tariff was 
a game in which the other fellow is 
duped. Well, Mr. Chairman, if that is 
true, then lot us see that we are not 
"the other fellow." 

It was due to Bismarck that Ger- 
many adopted tlie Protective Tariff 



policy, and to it she owes her present 
commanding position in the world of 
commerce. England has been a Free- 
Trade nation ever since Cobden formu- 
lated her commercial policy. She was 
forced to be such, because she needed 
the raw material of the world for her 
great diversified manufacturing indus- 
tries, and was willing to become the 
dumping ground for the surplus of the 
world's fields so as to give her manu- 
facturers their material as cheaply as 
possible. But of late a new light is 
shining even there. A constantly in- 
creasing* number of British economists 
are of the opinion that the time is rap- 
idly approaching when Free-Trade must 
make way for Protection, and when 
that time comes, Mr. Chairman, we 
may be sure that "John Bull" will look 
out for number one, as he always does. 

Whai the Dingley Tariff Has Done. 

The Republican party by its latest 
national platform and through the ut- 
terances of the distinguished citizen 
who now sits in the Presidential chair, 
is committed to a revision of the Tar- 
iff. It ought to make good its pledge. 
It ought to and will revise the sched- 
ules of the Dingley Tariff, under the 
operations of which the capital invest- 
ed in manufacturing industries, the 
number of wage-earners, and the ag- 
gregate of wages paid have increased 
by hundreds of millions. They saj' that 
the steel and iron business is a pretty 
good barometer, so far as the pros-' 
perity of the country Is concerned, and 
I guess that comes very near to being 
the truth. Well, then, Mr. Speaker, 
the Dingley Tariff went into effect 
actually in 1898. In that year our ex- 
ports of manufactures of iron and 
steel, according to the Statistical Ab- 
stract of the United States, were $70,- 
406=885; in 1907 — ten years later — they 
were, so the Monthly Summary of 
Commerce and Finance of the United 
States informs us, $197,066,781, an in- 
crease of nearly 300 per cent. Not so 
bad for a Tariff created In accordance 
with a policy which, its adversaries 
claiin, makes foreign markets inac- 
cessible. 

It is of interest to give a few figures 
showing how the Tariff of 1897 — the 
Dingley Tariff — has operated in regard 
to wage-earners. Again I take the 
year 1898 as the year in which tlie 



FOCIIT. 



35 



l>inglcy Tariff actually went into ef- 
fect. The following- table shows the 
increases for each year until and in- 
cluding 1906, as given in the Statis- 
tical Abstract for 1907: 



We see from this that since the Din- 
gley Tariff took effect the number of 
wage-earners has steadily grown; their 
relative hours of labor have greatly 
diminished, and yet their earnings as 



How the Tariff Has Operated in Regard to Wage Earners. 

Full time 
week's 
Hours Wages earnings 

Yeaj. Em- per per per em- 

ployees, week. 



hour. 



ployee. 



1898, 
1899. 
1900. 
1901. 
1902. 
1903. 
1904, 
1905, 
1906. 



106.4 
112.1 
115.6 
119.1 
123.6 
126.5 
125.7 
133.6 
142.9 



99.7 


100.2 


99.9 


99.2 


102 


101.2 


98.7 


105.5 


104.1 


98.1 


108 


105.9 


97.3 


112.2 


109.2 


96.6 


116.3 


112.3 


95.9 


117 


112.2 


95.9 


118.9 


114 


95.4 


124.2 


118.5 



steadily and considerably increased. 
This increase in the number of wage- 
earners is directly traceable to the op- 
erations of the Protective Tariff, which 
has been the cause of the investment in 
this country of hundreds of millions 
of foreign capital, which, under a pol- 
icy of Free-Trade, would have been 
invested elsewhere. Many foreign 
manufacturers shut out of our market 
or heavily handicapped by the heavy 
duties imposed by our Tariff, but at- 
tracted by the business our home mar- 
ket offers, have established plants here, 
or invested their money in stock in 
plants already existing, thereby en- 
larging their capacity. 

The Workingman's Opportunity. 

No statistics are available to show 
just how much of such foreign capital 
has been brought here, but it is safe 
to say that hundreds of millions of 
dollars have in this manner found 
their way to our shores. The foreign 
capitalists would undoubtedly have 
preferred to keep their capital at home 
If they could have reached our home 
market in another way. But the Pro- 
tective policy compelled the invest- 
ments, and thus American labor was 
given the opportunity to make many 
products that foreign labor would have 
made but for the Tariff. There is com- 
fort in the contemplation of the fact 
that even if the cost of living on this 
side of the water is somewhat greater 
than it is in England or France or 
Germany, yet the earnings of the 



American workingman are so much 
better that he can afford to maintain 
a very much higher standard of living. 
Again, it is the Tariff that has made 
wages higher and placed the Ameri- 
can workingman where he is envied 
by all his fellow-workers the world 
over. 

Look at our immigration. In 1898 
there came to our shores 229,299. Year 
by year the number grew until in 1907 
there came a host of 1,285,349. What 
does this prove, Mr. Chairman? Why, 
that the opportunity to earn a liveli- 
hood was here; that the demand for 
workingmen was steadily growing, and 
that the wages paid here were allur- 
ing. People do not go to places where 
there is no work for them, and again, 
it is the Protective Tariff that gave 
birth to, or made it possible, to en- 
large the industries in which all these 
millions found ready employment. 
Some of these immigrants do not make 
desirable citizens, but they would not 
come if it were not for the inducement 
of better conditions. This is the house 
that "Jack Tariff" built, and which he 
filled full of everything that man needs 
for the comforts of life. 

Our Tariff does nothing more than 
"equal the difference of the cost of pro- 
duction at home and abroad." It Pro- 
tects the Ainerican manufacturer 
again.st the importation of articles 
made by the poorly paid labor of Eu- 
rope and the Far East, and it Protects 
the American workingman against 
having to come down to the level of 



36 



FOCHT. 



that poorlj- paid labor. It insures that 
reasonable profit to American indus- 
tries; only that and nothing more. It 
behooves us, therefore, in taking upon 
ourselves the revision of the Tariff 
schedules, to be careful not to disturb 
the balance in the one scale of which 
is the welfare of the American manu- 
fa,cturer, and in the other the welfare 
of the American workingman. 

But, as there is nothing perfect that 
Is made of human hands, so this Tariff, 
which is to be the fruit of this extraor- 
dinary session, will lack perfection. 
Recognizing the fallibility of our judg- 
ment, it behooves us to be all the more 
careful as to possible mistakes, and so 
to guide our final decisions that no 
injury shall be done to any of ,the in- 
dustries which by virtue of the Pro- 
tective Tariff have reached their pres- 
ent degree of prosperity and have un- 
measurably benefited the American 
workingman. 

Free-Trade in Disguise. 

There is a school of political econo- 
mists, Mr. Speaker, whose contention 
is that the reduction of Tariff duties 
would bring more revenue to the Gov- 
ernment by increasing the volume of 
Imports. Let us see how this would 
work. We imported in 1907 in dutiable 
goods $773,448,834; our duty-free im- 
ports amounted to $641,953,451. Of the 
total imports of $1,415,402,285 (see Sta- 
tistical Abstract for 1907), therefore, 
45.35 per cent came in free of duty. 
Our average ad valorem duty on duti- 
able articles was 42.55 per cent. Cut 
this in half and we would have to im- 
port $1,546,897,668 in order to bring 
Into the Treasury the same amount of 
revenue derived from present Tariff 
rates. Or, to put it another way, with 
a Tariff only half as high as the pres- 
ent, instead of importing $1,415,402,285, 
we would have to import $2,830,804,570 
to raise the same revenue, and would 
have to deprive American capital and 
American labor of their legitimate ac- 
tivity to just that extent. No, Mr. 
Chairman, this deceptive argument of 
your Tarlff-for-revenue-only econo- 
mist, charm he ever so wisely, falls 
upon deaf ears as far as I am con- 
cerned. It is Free-Trade in disguise, 
and that flower by another name 
smells just as bad. 



Reduction in the Iron and Steel Schedule. 

We have heard a good deal, Mr. 
Chairman, in the course of the recent 
Tariff hearings about Mr. Carnegie's 
statement before the Ways and Means 
Committee, to the effect that there is 
no further need for import duties on 
steel and iron. Mr. Carnegie is no 
longer in the iron business. He has 
made his pile and sits snug and warm, 
and the marvelous income which he 
derives from the underlying bonds, not 
of the United States Steel Corporation, 
but of the properties which he sold to 
that concern, enables him to scatter 
far and wide throughout this blessed 
country libraries, large and small, for 
the benefit of its people. That is all 
right; and yet, Mr. Chairman, this opin- 
ion of the Laird of Skibo reminds me 
much of the story of that wealthy lady 
who, coming in from the street on a 
raw, cold, winter day, called her butler 
and directed him to send a ton of coal 
to a certain poor family. She sat 
down by the cozy open grate fire, had 
a dainty luncheon, and felt warm and 
comfortable. Her butler entered and 
asked for the address of the poor fam- 
ily, when the lady said: 

"You need not mind sending the coal 
now, Jeffries; the weather has mode- 
rated a good deal." 

I trulj' believe that the weather has 
moderated considerably for Mr. An- 
drew Carnegie. 

There may be a schedule here and 
there, Mr. Chairman, a slight reduction 
of which may not work irremediable 
injury to the industries affected by it. 
It may be that our supply of iron ore 
is so abundant that it will more than 
supply the demand at home and from 
abroad. It may be that our iron and 
steel manufacturers have attained such 
a degree of skill in the production of 
their wares that they can hold their 
own against all foreign competition, 
even if the duty on such imports 
should be reduced. 

Cannot Prosper Without Protection. 

1 shall not bo so presumptuous as to 
constitute myself their mouthpiece. 
They are fully competent to state tVieIr 
own case and state it much more effec- 
tively than I can possibly make It. 
I shall simply point to the testimony 
of Mr. Gary, the president of the Uni- 
ted States Steel Corporation, and 0th- 



FOCI IT. KEIFEK. 



's: 



ers now actively engaged In the iron 
and steel manufacturing- business, and 
put their contention that tlie industry 
can not prosper witliout the Protection 
of the Tariff against Mr, Carnegie's 
opinion to the contrary. But this par- 
ticular instance will serve quite ac- 
ceptably as an illustration of how 
great minds do not always run in the 
same channels, and how doctors may 
differ, especially when one of them 
has gone out of practice and the others 
are still In it. 



The Fallacy of Free=Trade Theories 
Demonstrated in Actual Practice. 

From the Congressional Record of March ^9, 
1909. 

J. WARREN KEIFER, of Ohio. I 
shall waste little time in 'answering 
the long since exploded academic Free- 
Trade theories still reiterated here. 
Their fallacy was demonstrated in ac- 
tual practice by the operation of the 
Wilson Free-Trade Tariff of 1894, 
which produced unparalleled distress 
In this country, and bs' the operation 
of the present Protective Tariff, which 
restored universal prosperity to this 
country. 

I tliink the Ways and Means Com- 
mittee of this House and the country 
are to be congratulated upon the gen- 
eral fairness of the bill reported and 
the evident desire of the committee to 
maintain the principle of Protection to 
American labor and American indus- 
tries. I say this much in justice to 
the committee, although there may be 
parts of the bill which I think should 
be amended. 

The task devolving on a Republican 
Congress of revising the Dingley Tar- 
iff act of 1897, a Republican measure, 
is a vastly more difficult and delicate 
task tlian a revision of any former 
Tariff act. This because, for the first 
time, a party of Protection is called 
on to revise a Protective Tariff act ex- 
clusively of its own creation. 

The financial panic of 1907 bore no 
relation to the Tariff, and but for the 
Tariff its evil effects would have been 
more calamitous and far-reaching than 
they were. Bad business methods 
brought it about, and a return to hon- 
est methods soon stopped its disastrous 
progress. We have learned some 
wholesome lessons from it. The large 



business corporations, such as con- 
trolled the railroads and the larger 
operations of the country, were the 
first and principal sufferers from the 
panic. These same corporations are 
here denounced as monopolies and in 
the same breath their condition pointed 
to as evidence of the hard times sup- 
posed to still exist. 

The Remedy Certainly Will Not Com 7 
from Free-Trade. 

It is, however, somewhat misleading 
to point out that railways have large 
numbers of idle cars on sidetracks and 
that there are now large numbers of 
unemployed men. If through short 
crops and want of business confidence 
cars are not in use and men are un- 
employed, a Protective Tariff is not to 
be blamed for it. The remedy cer- 
tainly will not come from Free-Trade; 
that is, by turning our laborers out 
of mills and shops at home and by buy- 
ing our supplies of manufactured arti- 
cles from other countries, and by com- 
pelling our farm people to sell their 
grain and food animals to pauper-paid 
laborers in distant parts of the world. 

It is highly important that the prob- 
ably now 30,000,000 of our agricultural 
people should have their interests care- 
fully Protected in any Tariff legisla- 
tion, for on our food supply depends 
largely the success of all other pur- 
suits. The farmer has the least repre- 
sentation here and before our commit- 
tees, and his interests are the most 
likely to be neglected. All other gen- 
eral or special Interests seem to be 
represented by agents, attorneys or 
lobbyists. The sheep or wool interests 
seem to be the only ones concerned in 
agriculture who are represented here. 

Monopolies and Trusts. 

Tlie claim that monopolies and trusts 
have also prospered during the exist- 
ence of the Dingley Tariff and that 
particular individuals have amassed a 
disproportionate share of wealth and 
power is more apparent than real, and 
the Dingley Tariff is not responsible 
for them. The number of these is com- 
paratively small when the whole num- 
ber of our inhabitants engaged in busi- 
ness are taken into account. The com- 
mon people never before enjoyed so 
much general prosperity as in the last 
ten years, and never before, In this or 



38 



KEIFER. 



any other country, toiled so few hours 
per day and j^et possessed so much of 
the Nation's wealth and so many 
homes. All parties profess to favor 
legislation that will secure universal 
prosperity. This can not be brought 
about without some of the more enter- 
prising acquiring large fortunes. Pov- 
erty of the masses of our people is 
not the panacea for inordinate indi- 
vidual wealth, as our Democratic 
friends seem to think. 

If trusts and monopolies were neces- 
sarily incident to our Nation's pros- 
perity, then general poverty and dis- 
tress would seem to be the only way 
to get rid of them. But, happily, they 
are not necessarily the offspring of 
prosperity, nor is poverty the true 
Temedy for them. Trusts and monopo- 
lies, whenever found to be an evil, 
should be separately dealt with by 
proper legislation. 

What Would be the Condition of the 
Unemployed? 

When conditions, from any cause, be- 
come unfavorable throughout the whole 
country, it naturally seems that more 
people are thrown out of work at such 
a center than elsewhere, though, rela- 
tively, this is not the case. It is only 
where large numbers are brought to- 
gether that unfavorable conditions are 
■clearly observed. And what Avould the 
condition of unemployed people be if 
they were located where no manufac- 
turing or producing enterprises exist- 
ed? What would or could they do if 
mining or manufacturing were not 
conducted anywhere? What would be 
the effect on these people if they could 
only be empfoyed as farm hands or as 
agriculturists? If so employed, where 
would the market be for their surplus 
farm products, if they had any? If 
they were not able to get work at all 
on farms, then where? 

But the real cause of trouble never 
arises in the great active business cen- 
ters, but always in consequence of a 
general business depression and a fail- 
ure of confidence in the future, or for 
some other controlling cause over 
which the producers at such centers 
have no control and which are not 
connected with or dependent on any 
American Tariff law. The trouble, if 
trouble comes, is always with the con- 
sumers of a particular product rather 



than with its producer; not on account 
of any Protective duty on any special 
thing. And the general result is that 
as soon as confidence is restored busi- 
ness revives, and those who were in 
enforced idleness are given work, and 
usually at the same wages formerly 
paid them. Wages do not in such cases 
go, or have not usually gone, down 
for men employed in the principal in- 
dustries. 

Free-Trade the Mother of Idleness. 

Free-Trade which prevents the es- 
tablishing of important industries at 
great centers, or generally anywhere, 
is the only remedy proposed to prevent 
idleness. It is the mother of idleness. 
That is, to prevent natural laborers, in 
exceptional times, from the danger of 
beconning temporarily unemployed, the 
Free-Tra'der would so legislate as to 
prevent his being employed at good 
wages at all; or if employed in a pros- 
perous business, the Free-Trader would 
destroy it, to make certain that by no 
possibility could they obtain employ- 
ment at all where their genius, skill, 
and industry would be properly re- 
warded. 

The annual values, stated in round 
numbers, of products of all kinds in 
the United States are; 

Farm products $ 7,500,000,000 

Mineral products 2,000,000,000 

Forest and fish products.... 1,000,000,000 
Manufactured products 18.000.000,000 

Total $28,500,000,000 

The value of our annual exports is 
$1,700,000,000. The foreign market for 
our products is only 5.9 per cent. The 
value of our home consumption is $26,- 
800,000,000. 

The home market for our products is 
94.1 per cent. 

Our prosperity depends on maintain- 
ing the home market as much as on 
home production. 

When capital and labor are employed 
our people are interdependent produc- 
ers and consumers, and necessarily en- 
joy prosperity. The value of material 
used, cost of production, and the wages 
earned and profits made then remain 
in the United States. 

A Greater South. 

Notwithstanding they so voted, the. 
stronger and better business men of 
the South are now boasting of a "new 
South." a "greater South." and they are 



KEIFKK. 



:v.) 



l-ejoicing over its recovery tliroug-h It will be seen by these tables that 
Protective Tariff laws from effete and both imports and exports were almost 
Free-Trade business notions which pre- double in the three Protective over the 
vented the establishing of healthy and three practically Free-Trade years, 
prosperous industries and the develop- The balance against us of imports 
ment of its natural resources. They oyer exports under the Wilson act, it 
will no longer seek to prevent manu- ig seen, was $645,611,642, while the bal- 
facturing and general business Indus- ance In our favor under the Dingley 
tries being established and maintained act was $596,775,446, the diffei^ence be- 
in their midst and to prevent well-paid, ing- $1,242,417,088. 

independent, free labor as was long comment is' unnecessary. The lesson 
the rule in the South. The expression ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ p^^_ 
of this rule was embodied in the con- ^^^ prosperity, in- 
stitution of the Confederate States of ^^^^^ .^ ^^^^ luxuries, and hence pur- 
America, which ran thus: ^^^^^^ ^^^,^ -^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^.^^ articles 
"Nor shall any duties or taxes on abroad than in times of Free-Trade 

l^ri'o^TorJl^'^orTortl^.lTZln^c^ -« "= — ->- ^-'— depression. 

of industry.^' The large per capita of deposits in 

Under this provision duties on im- savings banks in the manufacturing 

ports were prohibited for the expres-s regions referred to shows the general 

purpose of preventing the establishing distribution of wealth among the peo- 

or fostering of any branch of industry. pie and its great excess over that of 

Slavery was bucolic, and any industry, the people of the other regions. The 

likewise progress, was inimical to it. importance of locating the producer 

It was most gratifying to see, as I and consumer side by side is shown 

did to-day. a sign on a lot on the in this comparative etatement. The 

northeast corner of Fifteenth and H price of farm lands in the manufactur- 

streets. of this city, reading: ing region is, all things considered, 

"On this site will be erected the ^^^"^^^ higher than in the other parts. 

building for the Southern Commercial Every spot of the once nonmanufac- 

Congress for a greater Nation through turing South that has been touched 

^ ouucii. with a mining or manufacturing indus- 

Under this should have been written: try has prospered in contrast with 

"Who would have thought it; the other parts, and this is the case 

Tlie Dingley Act brought it. , i • ..i • 4. 

* elsewhere m this country. 

Imports and Exports Under Protection. 

Our national wealth has about dou- ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^'''"d or Prodtrces Noth- 

bled since the present Tariff law went '"9 'S a Natural Free-Trader. 

into operation. Whoever produces something from 

Experience has also shown that both his mechanical or inventive skill im- 

our exports and imports have increased mediately becomes a patriotic Ameri- 

under Protective Tariff laws. An ex- can Protectionist, and whoever does 

ample showing this will be found in nothing or produces nothing is a nat- 

the following tables giving the value ural Free-Trader, and he always pre- 

of imports and exports of merchandise tends to believe that he has, in some 

in three successive years under each way, been robbed by Tariff Protection 

of the Wilson and Dingley Tariff acts: of what he never had or deserved to 

Values of imports and exports of merchandise under the Y\^ilson Tariff act. 
„ ^ . .. H^^. Imports. Exports. 

September 1, 1894, to August 31. 1895 $759,108,416 $806,670,050 

September 11 895, to July 31, 1896 687,605,637 837,802,519 

August 1, 1896. to July 31. 1897 766,296,619 1,054,379,735 

Total $2,698,852,304 $2,213,010,662 

Values of imports and exports of merchandise under the Dingley Tariff act. 

Imports. Exports. 

August 1. 1905. to July 31, 1906 $1,244,612,289 $1,747,627,353 

August 1, 1906, to July 31, 1907 1,456,450,869 1.897,707,339 

August 1, 1907. to June 30, 1908 1,069,719,899 1,732,223,811 

Tctal $3,770,783,057 $4,3e7,5rS,5&3 



40 



KEIFER. 



have. He pretends to believe that if 
he could buy cheap, foreign pauper- 
rnade things he would still prosper, al- 
though he had nothing and earned 
nothing to buy anything. There must 
be earning power and capacity and op- 
portunity to exercise them to acquire 
money, and without monej' nothing can 
be purchased. There is no practical 
difference between high and low prices 
to a would-be purchaser who is with- 
out money. 

If an article costs a dollar and Is 
needed by a person who has not and 
can not earn the dollar, it might as 
well be offered to such a person at $2, 
but if a person has not the dollar and 
somebody is standing ready to employ 
him at two, three, or four dollars per 
day, the acquisition of the needed arti- 
cle is easily in sight. This is well un- 
derstood by the intelligent wage-earn- 
ers of this countr3% and appeals to ex- 
cite prejudice against their employers 
have been, and will continue to be, 
vain. And where the operatives in 
mills and factories are employed at 
good wages, all classes of mechanics 
and farm hands necessarily are in like 
manner employed, and when everybody 
is so employed general prosperity in 
all pursuits prevails. When employed, 
our people become interdependent pro- 
ducers and consumers and all enjoy 
prosperity. 

Our market for all kinds of products 
of farm and factory is approximately 
94 per cent of it at home.. This is the 
market to promote and make secure. 
To do so is both wise and patriotic. 
America for Americans should be the 
watch-cry until the millennium comes. 

Goods Sold Cheaper Abroad. 

We still hear some talk about our 
manufacturers selling some of their 
product abroad for less than at home. 
This is rarely true save in appearance. 
Goods are generally sold to go abroad 
at wholesale and bring to the manu- 
facturer more in net cash than he can 
realize if sold at home through agents 
and commission houses. The sales 
abroad are also generally of a surplus 
or remnant, and the goods are often 
made to sell in a foreign market to 
keep a home plant in operation. The 
proposed Democratic remedy for these 
foreign sales is to totally destroy our 
home-producing power and prevent rur 



people from selling anything at home 
or abroad. 

What Democratic Revision Would Do. 

No vested rights of property, no es- 
tablished industry, no scale of wages 
for the skilled mechanic or the com- 
mon laborer in this country would be 
respected if Democratic revision could 
prevail. American interests and mar- ■ 
kets would be slaughtered to promote 
foreign interests and markets. Amer- 
ican mines, mills, and factories would 
be closed and capital sacrificed or re- 
main uninvested, all to promote for- 
eign industries and investments. 

The farmers' surplus product would 
be left to perish, or to be sold, if at 
all, at home to a largely idle people at 
very low prices, or transported for a 
like market, if any, to foreign parts, 
the farmer paying the cost of trans- 
portation and then selling, if at all, to , 
pauper-paid classes of people. Demo- 
cratic revision would have the con- 
sumers of American farm products lo- 
cated as far as possible from where 
ttiey are grown. Such policy would 
separate as widely as possible the pro- 
ducer and consume!', reversing the axi- 
omatic prosperity maxim, "Farm and 
factory side bj' side." 

Protection for Farm Products. 

This Democratic policy would not 
only turn the laborers from mining, 
mill, factory, and shop, but, in time, 
would drive them to agricultural pur- 
suits, and, by increasing the number of 
farmers, lessen their chances for prof- 
its, and thereby reverse existing con- 
ditions. 

In the proportion that the consum- 
ers of products of the field and farm 
exceed the number engaged in agricul- 
ture will the business of farming pay. 
The people in continental United States 
engaged in agricultui'e is about 35 per 
cent of the whole number. I remem- 
ber when they were about 85 per cent 
of the whole number, and then farm- 
ers generally were poor and their 
products brought comparatively little. 

The theory that our markets abroad 
for farm products would be increased 
by our buying manufactured or other 
goods abroad is not even plausible, and 
it has never been supported by experi- 
ence. No country or people buy from 
us what they have or can produce at 



KEIFER. 



41 



home. Not a bushel of wheat, a barrel 
of flour, a pound of beef or pork, or 
other product of agriculture or any- 
thing else ever was purchased from 
the United States by any foreign peo- 
ple unless they needed it and could not 
produce it themselves. And we have 
just seen that we both buy and sell 
more abroad in Protective than in 
Free-Trade times. 

The further Democratic, un-Ameri- 
can theory that if we buy our goods 
from abroad and thereby enrich the 
foreign manufacturers and keep the 
foreign masses employed that they will 
be better able to buy of us needs only 
to be stated to show its fallacy. Is it 
not a better and ynser policy to estab- 
lish and maintain flourishing mills, 
shops, and factories at home, filled with 
American well-paid laborers, and then 
rely on home consumption of our farm 
and other products? Anything that 
sacrifices home industries and thereby 
drives our mechanics to the streets, 
idle, is business suicide and un-Ameri- 
can. 

The Party of Free-Trade. 

The Democratic party, judged by its 
legislative history and by its platform 
declarations, can only be regarded as a 
Free-Trade party and inimical to all 
American Protection of labor. and capi- 
tal. The individual views of certain 
Democrats only Indicate their desire 
to abandon a party that has done so 
much to prevent universal prosperity 
throughout the Union. When in power 
its legislation proved disastrous to the 
people. When out of power it has had 
some apparent success as a party of 
criticism, which is the last and lowest 
stage of party existence. 

In 1892 its national platform read: 

"We denounce Protection as a rob- 
bery of the many to enrich the few." 

It then denounced reciprocity as a 
jugglery; and the Wilson-Gorman Act 
repealed all of the provisions in the 
McKinley Act of 1890 relating to reci- 
procity, and declared ttiat everything' 
done or attempted to be done to en- 
force it should be held to be null and 
void. By this our Government could 
not keep its reciprocal Tariff agree- 
ments with certain foreign countries, 
and was compelled to break faith with 
them, to our great dishonor. Yet in 
1904 that party in its national platform 
indorsed reciprocity as sound in princi- 



ple if coupled with Free-Trade, as 
though reciprocity could be practiced 
or would be necessary if our ports 
were open for free importations to all 
the world. Reciprocity is only possi- 
ble as an incident to Protection. Reci- 
procity relates to a concession of ex- 
isting duties between countries that 
levy duties; and, consequently. If no 
American duty exists, there can be no 
concession, and none Is needed or could 
possibly be made. 

Protect/on and Raw Materials. 

I understood the distinguished gen- 
tleman from Missouri [Mr. Clark] to 
announce in his recent speech that he 
and his party were now in favor of 
putting raw material on the free list. 
I congratulate him and his party over 
this conversion, and, I may say. prog- 
ress. It was the platform policy of 
the Democratic party in 1892. and 
later, to class many things as raw ma- 
terial and then put them on the free 
list. President Cleveland, In his mem- 
orable letter of July 2, 1894, (see Rec- 
ord, vol. 23, pt. 3, p. 8494), to Mr. Wil- 
son, then chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee of this House, after 
soundly and truthfully denouncing and 
trouncing his party for Its failure 
when in power to be able to act wisely 
and in the interest of the people, pro- 
ceeded to declare: 

"We have in our platforms and in 

every way possible declared in favor 

■ iS,® ^^^® importation of raw m.ate- 

"It must be admitted that no Tariff 
measure can accord with Democratic 
principles and promises, or bear a gen- 
uine Democratic badge, that does not 
provide for free raw material." 

Wool, hides, and some other things 
were then commonly treated as raw 
material. 

I agree, in the main, with the gen- 
tleman from Missouri [Mr. Clark] in 
his recently expressed views here that 
there is no such thing as raw material 
in the hands of its producer, and that 
everj'thing is raw material to the user 
or consumer in manufacturing or oth- 
erwise. I also like his convenient pol- 
icy of favoring a Protective duty on 
anything, raw material or not (salt 
only excepted), provided such duty will 
produce a revenue. He says he stands 
for Free-Trade, on salt under all cir- 
cumstances as a Missouri ancient tra- 



KEIFER. 



dition, and on that alone. I heard him 
with interest discuss the policy of a 
duty on zinc, a product of Missouri, 
and I would call a 10-cent limit on 
the proposition that his mental show- 
down will disclose that he has reached 
the conclusion that zinc needs a Pro- 
tective duty ag-ainst Mexican zinc be- 
cause such a duty will produce a reve- 
nue. I hope he and his party will 
work the same mental racket on some 
other things that should be Protected. 
In a broad sensfe there is no such 
thing as raw material, and in a nar- 
rower sense alinost everything is, to 
somebody, raw material. An article or 
commodity is never raw material in 
the hands of its prodvicer, and in the 
hands of a manufacturer thereof or of 
its consumer it is, to him, raw ma- 
terial. 

What Revision Sfiou/d and Should Not Be. 

The principle of Protection inust be 
generally maintained with reduction 
of duty on articles in the interest of 
revenue and without endangering the 
perpetuation of our home industries 
and the employment of our laborers at 
fair and remunerative wages. The 
farmer, as well as the manufacturer 
and laborer, should have his interests 
safeguarded. Our diverse and local in- 
terests, regardless of section, must be 
honestly cared for. If revision means 
a scramble for Protection of one sec- 
tion or industry to the exclusion of 
other sections or industries, or if the 
struggle is to be to put products of 
one section or class of our people on 
the free list because they are desired 
to be cheapened for manufacturers in 
other parts or by other classes, then 
when such revision comes, if it can 
come, there will be great cause of com- 
plaint, and it will prove a failure If it 
does not promptly and inevitably lead 
to great business disaster. 

Free-Trade, universal Free-Trade, 
would be preferable to such revision. 

Experience has shown that if the 
doors are open for free foreign compo- 
tion as to any generally needed thing 
In this country, and that if the price 
thereof should be lowered thereby, it 
would be only for a time suflicient to 
destroy American competition and to 
drive our capital and labor out of the 
business involved, and then that the 
price would go back to a point higher 



than it had been produced for at home. 
For example, the Wilson Tariff Act 
(1894) put cotton ties on the free list, 
and the result was that they ceased to 
be made in the United States, and the 
price thereof soon just about doubled. 
The contention that products may be 
bought more cheaply abroad, through 
Free-Trade, is fallacious; but, if so, 
are we willing to abandon our policy 
of establishing, maintaining, and di- 
versifying our own industries, and our 
policy of upbuilding and extending the 
employment of our own people, and 
thereby enabling them to receive liv- 
ing wages, and to permit our capital 
to be invested at a fair profit? 

All Classes of Our People Will be Directly 
or Indirectly Benefited. 

A Tariff may seem only to Protect 
a particular industry or occupation, 
yet if it is Protected and made to 
flourish, all classes of our people will 
be, directly or indirectlJ^ benefited. So 
of all industries. They should, as far 
as possible, all be equitably Protected. 
It is impossible, especially In this 
country, for any large body of our 
people to follow successfully one occu- 
pation; and in so far as they do the 
country as a whole will not flourish 
financially or mentally. 

It is only through diversified indus- 
tries and ambitions that this country 
can continue to hold its commanding 
position and to exercise its controlling 
influence in the mental, moral, and 
business affairs of the world, or Its 
people can generally prosper and be 
happy. 

A reduction of import duties that 
does not result in bringing foreign 
goods into our country, not hitherto In 
competition with domestic goods will 
benefit nobody nor will it produce any 
additional revenue. To the extent that 
foreign goods take the place of our 
home-made goods, our laborers and 
capitalists must suffer. For every ar- 
ticle purchased ' abroad that could bo 
purchased of home production, gold or 
its equivalent will go abroad and our 
laborers and Industries will be de- 
prived of it. If revision is not such 
as to bring foreign and domestic good-s 
In competition, then it will mean noth- 
ing. If this does not result, then the 
revision will lead to no good nor do no 
harm, save In destroying confidence. 



KEIFER. DIEKEMA. 



43 



And even Free-Trade or any approach 
to It that does not secure pauper-man- 
ufactured foreign goods and the dis- 
pensing with a like amount of our 
own goods will be equally vain and 
prices will not be reduced by it. 

A revision of duties by reduction on 
what we are now able through Pro- 
tection to produce would only have the 
effect to seriously injure or destroy 
our own industries, turn our laborers 
out of them, or compel them to accept 
reduced wages. 

If the duty is reduced only so as to 
threaten the coming In of foreign pro- 
ducts and so as to require the reduc- 
tion of the price of our own home pro- 
ducts, then the laborers, farmers, and 
manufacturers will still suffer the pen- 
alty in reduced wages, lower prices, 
and in the value of home products. 

President McKinley's Last Speech. 

So much of a misleading character 
l3 said of President McKinley's last 
(Buffalo) speech (September 5, 1901) in 
which he talked of Tariff revision, that 
I think best to try to have his then 
real views better understood. This 
speech was delivered after the pres- 
ent Tariff law had been in force only 
four years. Listen to some of the 
things he said in that speech had been 
accomplished by it: 

My fellow-citizens, trade statistics 
Indicate that this country is in a state 
of unexampled prosperity. The figures 
are almost appalling. They show that 
we are utilizing our fields and forests 
and mines, and that we are furnishing 
profitable employment to the millions 
of workingmen throughout the United 
States, bringing comfort and happiness 
to their homes, and making it possible 
to lay by savings for old age and dis- 
ability. That all the people are par- 
ticipating in this great prosperity is 
seen in every American community and 
shown by the enormous and unpreced- 
ented deposits in our savings banks. 

We have a vast and intricate busi- 
ness built up through years of toil and 
struggle, in which every part of the 
country has its stake, which will not 
permit of either neglect or undue sel- 
fishness. No narrow, sordid policy will 
subserve it. The greatest skill and 
wisdom on the part of the manufac- 
turers and producers will be required 
to hold and increase it. Our industrial 
enterprises which have grown to such 
great proportions affect the homes and 
occupations of the people and the wel- 
fare of the country. Our capacity to 
produce has developed so enormously 
and our products have so multiplied 
that the problem of more markets re- 



quires our urgent and immediate atten- 
tion. Only a broad and enlightened 
policy will keep what we have. 
ti * * * * * 

By sensible trade arrangements, 
which will not Interrupt our home pro- 
duction, we shall extend the outlets for 
our increasing surplus. 

* * * « « •» 

What we produce beyond our domes- 
tic consumption must have a vent 
abroad. 

If perchance some of our Tariffs are 
no longer needed for revenue or to en- 
courage and protect our industries at 
home, why should they not be em- 
ployed to extend and promote our mar- 
kets abroad? 

First Protect and increase Our Home 

Industries. 

Whatever of suggestion the speech 
contains as to extending trade to other 
countries through reciprocity or 
through an interchange of commodities 
is conditioned upon first Protecting and 
increasing our home industries, upon 
preserving fair and existing wages to 
our laborers, and upon securing a 
needed revenue to the Government. 

Of course, on such condition. It 
should be our highest ambition to se- 
cure a market for all the surplus com- 
modities we may or can produce. 
President McKinley, in that speech, ut- 
tered no word showing a purpose to 
lower the banner of Protection he had 
so long upheld. 



Revision Downward in Over loo 
Paragraphs. 

From the Congressional Record of March 29, 
1909- 

G. J. DIEKEMA, of Michigan. Mr. 
Chairman, I desire, first of all, to con- 
gratulate the majority of the Ways 
and Moans Committee upon having re- 
ported to us a Tariff bill which the 
country has accepted as the fairest bill 
ever reported to the House. I desire to 
thank the distinguished chairman of 
the cominittee. 

I like the Payne bill, as a whole, be- 
cause it has kept the faith handed 
down to us by the fathers from Abra- 
ham Lincoln to William Howard Taft. 
Its very title breathes hope, prosperity, 
and Protection, for it reads as follows: 

A bill to provide revenue, equalize 
duties, and encourage the industries of 
the United States, and for other pur- 
poses. 



44 



DIEKEMA. HAMER. 



I like the bill because it is broadly 
American and not sectional in its pro- 
visions. It knows no North, no South, 
no East, no West, but only our com- 
mon country and the interests and in- 
dustries of all the people of this great 
Republic of the West. 

I like the maximum and minimum 
sclieduie provisions, operating automat- 
ically, for by means of these we offer 
to all peoples industrial peace in our 
trade relations with them, provided 
they are willing to give us a square 
deal, and we want no peace upon any 
other condition. The liberalized draw- 
back provision will place the small 
exporter upon an equal footing with 
the large exporter and will stimulate 
our export trade. 

The revision downward in over 100 
paragraphs, embodying so great a 
number of leading articles of com- 
merce, meets the reasonable expecta- 
tion of the people, and the increase of 
rates upon some articles not now ade- 
quately Protected and which we can 
produce, though criticised by the oppo- 
sition, is a courageous adherence to 
the doctrine of Protection and bodes 
well for the future prosperity of the 
country. Under the Payne bill the 
American wage scale can be main- 
tained, the American laboring man's 
standard of living can be continued, all 
legitimate industry can prosper, and 
the American people can work out 
their God-given destiny under the 
folds of the Starry Flag, which every- 
where symbolizes liberty, equality, and 
justice. 



"Contribution to the General Pros- 
perity of the Country." 

From the Congressional Record of March 29, 
J909. 
THOMAS R. HAMER, of Idaho. I 
hold in my hand the photograph of one 
of the largest hotels in Washington 
City. It is a brick structure of 325 
rooms. It has a frontage of 110 feet, 
a depth of 100 feet, and is 13 stories, 
or 175 feet high, and has an exposed 
surface of 7,000 square yards, which is 
covered with three coats of lead and 
oil. I recently wrote the owner of 
this vast structure, who, by the way, 
is an architect of high standing and 
skill, and asked him the exact number 
of pounds of white lead used in paint- 



ing the building and the average life 
of three coats of such paint. Here is 
his answer: 

The exterior finish of the building is 
brick, covered with three coats of the 
best paint procurable, which is lead 
and oil. In painting the building 6,600 
pounds of ground white lead was used, 
the rough surface of the brick consum- 
ing twice the amount of material that 
would be required to paint an equal 
area of boards, and almost twice as 
much as will ever be required to re- 
paint it. The estimated life of three 
coats of lead and oil on an exposed 
surface is ten years. 

In a later conversation with him, I 
said: 

My dear sir, do you know that, ac- 
cording to the best Free-Trade author- 
ity we have, if you had built your hotel 
in Canada instead of in Washington, 
you would have saved 2 cents upon 
every pound of white lead used in 
painting your building, and, according 
to your figures, it took 6,600 pounds to 
do the job? 

And what, Mr. Chairman, do you 
think he said in reply? 

Well, what of it? The alleged econ- 
omy only amounts to $132 out of a total 
of a million dollars that it cost to build 
it. That $132 was my contribution to 
the lead miners of the Nation, who 
spend one-third of their lives in dan- 
gerous and exhausting labor under- 
ground. I do not begrudge it; it was 
my contribution to the general pros- 
perity of the country, without which 
my hotel would never have been built. 

One of many kind-hearted patriots, 
Mr, Chairman, whose only fault is that 
they can not help being Democrats, be- 
cause they were born that way. 
[Laughter and applause.] 

Lost His Voice Singing "God Save the 
King." 

Now, I hold in my hand another and 
different picture. The neat and mod- 
est cottage of one of the toilers of the 
land. It contains six rooms and a 
commodious pantry, is built of lumber, 
and is 26 by 22 by 20 feet in size, and 
has an exposed area of 24 squares. It 
contains a toilet and bath and is con- 
nected with the city sewer. Its ex- 
terior is finished in three coats of lead 
and oil. It required just 120 pounds of 
lead to paint that house and 18 pounds 
of lead pipe to plumb it, making a 
total of 138 pounds in all. I also had 
a talk with the owner of this house. 
I said: 

My good man, do you know that 
had you built your home in Canada 



lIAMEli. HUMPHREY. 



45 



you would have saved $2.76 in painting 
and plumbing it? 

He was silent, and, as I thought, 
dumfounded, but slowly taking a 
scratch pad from his pocket, he wrote 
■and handed me this message: 

Say, mister, I lived in that country 
for thirty 3'ears in a rented cottage, 
and lost my voice singing "God Save 
the King." 

[Laughter.] 

His answer was all suflicient. 

"Tariff reform" might mean free 
wool to the woolen manufacturer of 
the East, but when you ask them in 
return if they will consent to the im- 
portation of foreign manufactured 
woolens duty free, you must read their 
answer in the stars, for that is as near 
as you will come to getting any satis- 
faction. [Laughter.] 

The proposed "Tariff reform" may 
mean "free lumber," which would be 
a concession to a cult of so-called "po- 
litical philosophers," but would not 
mean a dollar in the reduction of 
prices to the consumer. 

Producers of Raw Materials. 

No, Mr. 'Chairman, we of the West 
are essentially producers of raw ma- 
terial and will be for some time to 
come. The agricultural development 
of the West has just begun — that of 
the East was finished sixty years ago 
by the grandfathers of the present 
generation. Until far more favorable 
conditions than now exist shall make 
the West a manufacturing people, too, 
will we consent, nor would it be fair 
to ask us to consent, to the repeal of 
a tariff that protects our sole produc- 
tions from the competition of the 
cheaper labor, cheaper transportation, 
and more favorable conditions that ex- 
ist throughout the world. There was 
a time, not many years ago, when con- 
ditions were exactly reversed. Then 
New England and other of our eastern 
sister States were producers of raw 
materials, and we, of the Rocky Moun- 
tain West, produced hardly none. We 
mined our gold and trapped our furs, 
but neither industry was then, nor has 
ever been, in need of Protection, while 
on the other hand, everything we then 
consumed carried in addition to an ex- 
orbitant cost of transportation, the ad- 
ditional burden of a Tariff, placed 
thereon, not in our interest, but at the 



behest of the eastern producers. For 
your flour, bacon, hardware, woolens, 
powder, and guns we uncomplainingly 
paid a price which, if demanded far- 
ther east, would have caused a revo- 
lution. 

We believed then, as we believe now, 
that to foster and protect each and 
every Interest of this country, whether 
peculiar to East, West, North, or South, 
should be the common interest of us 
all; and upon that upright and correct 
economic principle we propose to stand. 

The spindles and looms, the facto- 
ries and mills are of no more impor- 
tance to the dwellers on the Atlantic 
seaboard than the mined lead, the 
shorn fleece, the sawed lumber, and the 
sugar beet is to the producer of the 
western mountains and plains. 

I, for one, am willing to try the 
experiment of Tarii? reform under cer- 
tain conditions, but I prefer that It 
start way down east, where it origi- 
nated, and come west by easy stages; 
and if, after a few years' trial back 
there, it does not result in substituting 
adversity for prosperity, we may try 
it on our wool, sugar beets, lead, and 
luinber with some degree of confidence 
and equanimity. [Laughter and ap- 
plause.] 

On the other hand, if "Tariff reform" 
Is to degenerate into a game of "I 
tickle you and you tickle me," I for 
one propose, so far as my vote is con- 
cerned, that Idaho shall have her share 
of the tickling. [Laughter and ap- 
plause.] 



Protection for All or None. 

FroDi tlie Congressional Record of MarcJi 30, 
1909. 

WILLIAM E. HUMPHREY, of Wash- 
ington. I do not believe in placing a 
burden upon your neighbor that you 
are not willing to bear yourself. I 
most emphatically protest against Pro- 
tecting one section at the expense of 
another. If Protection is right, then it 
can not be wrong to Protect all; if it 
Is wrong, let us abandon it and adopt 
the theory of our ancient and oft-dis- 
credited enemy, the Democratic party. 
Justice demands that we protect all 
or none. This bill smacks too much 
of selfishness and expediency. 

Everywhere it bears the marks of 
wanting to Protect certain industries, 



46 



BROWNLOW; 



and in order to do this sacrifices others 
that the appearance of a reduction may 
be given. If the Ways and Means 
Committee could have known the senti- 
ment of the people to-day they would 
not ,have been so fearful of revising 
upward. The clamor for a reduction 
of the Tariff has suddenly stilled, as 
men in their sober second thought 
have begun to realize the paralysis of 
our Industries that will follow. In 
that demand they begin to see the si- 
lent mill, the deserted factory, the 
smokeless chimney. When it is done 
and the result follows the people will 
forget the clamor to which we listened. 
They will curse us only for the result. 
[Applause.] 



How the Country Has Fared Under 
Free=Trade Tariffs and Protective 
Tariffs. 

From the Congressional Record of March 30, 
1909. 

WALTER P. BROWNLOW, of Ten- 
nessee. We have two kinds of Tariff 
In this country, and both have been 
tried at various periods of our history, 
a Free-Trade Tariff and a Protective 
Tariff. 

The scope and limit of the Free- 
Trade Tariff is the raising of revenue 
svifflcient only to meet governmental 
expenses. In all its features it is a 
faithful reproduction of the system 
that England employs for the financial 
support of her Government. The de- 
sign of both systems being for revenue 
only, their operations and effects are 
similar in that the duties are levied 
(luxuries excluded) upon commodities 
that are in universal and unchangeable 
demand. These commodities (luxuries 
excepted) are nearly all absolute ne- 
cessities in the household economy of 
the common classes, and as they can 
not be produced with a margin of 
profit at home, they can not enter Into 
competition with home productions. 

A Protective Tariff 

In all essentials is the antipode of the 
Free-Trade system. Its design and ef- 
fect are twofold. While providing 
revenues commensurate with the needs 
and requirements of the Government, 
it so adjusts its levies as to princi- 
pally affect foreign articles coming in 



direct competition with home produc- 
tions, fixing such rates upon these for- 
eign importations that the market 
value of the same kind of products of 
home industries can not be reduced to 
the injury and impoverishment of our 
own producers and their millions of 
employees. 

A Protective Tariff is the only un- 
failing friend of our home laborers. It 
Is a sure-enough insurance policy 
against the possibility of distressing 
misfortune and want. It elevates their 
manhood and increases their self-re- 
liance in maintaining their profitable 
wages against the low level of cheap 
foreign labor. It inakes them love 
life and family associations, because 
it fills their homes with light, beauty, 
comfort, and plenty. It relieves them 
largely of the burden of expense, be- 
cause articles of necessity in their 
household economy and which can not 
be raised profitably at home, or raised 
at all, are admitted free of duty, as 
coffee, tea, sugar, and so forth. 

A Plain and Lucid Definition. 

D. H. Rice, one of the most learned 
and practical economists of his age, 
thus defines Protection: 

It is that economic system which re- 
quires that its sufficient duties shall be 
levied only upon such commodities (be- 
sides mere luxuries) as we are capable 
of producing in economy and quantity 
to regulate prices in the home market. 

Here is the principal scope and de- 
sign of a Protective Tariff in a nut- 
shell, and here is a forcible demonstra- 
tion of its truth, so often presented in 
Tariff literature, so tempting to use In 
this connection, and which will be ap- 
preciated for the force of its logic and 
trutlifulness by every farmer and 
housebuilder in the country whose 
business experience goes back twenty- 
five 3^ears. Prior to 1883 our steel- 
wire nails were imported. The Tariff 
tax was 1 cent a pound and the nails 
cost the consuiner 7 to 8 cents a pound. 
In 1883 the dutj'^ was increased to 4 
cents a pound. The item of nails 
amounts to millions annually in the 
expense account of the country. Our 
own manufacturers saw what was in 
it, and they began the manufacture of 
steel-wire nails, and in 1891 their mills 
turned out 4.000,000 kegs, and instead 



BROWNLOW. 



47 



of importation, they sent their products 
to every quarter of the globe and our 
people could buy them at 2 cents a 
pound. This illustration suffices for 
the present, and it may be added with 
propriety that the doctrines of 

Protection Justifies Itself 

in the same way and to the same ex- 
tent in all other articles into whose 
construction iron and steel enter. This 
one large significant instance of the 
advantages of Protection confirms the 
intelligent belief and opinion that 
Free-Trade is a gnome stalking 
through the shadows of political su- 
perstition iand prejudice of, as has been 
so often remarked, is a dream, a va- 
gary, a theory which, if it could be 
clothed with substance and power, 
would obliterate with one fell blow all 
Tariff duties and raze all the custom- 
houses along our frontiers and, with- 
out let or hindrance, the nations of 
the earth would flood our markets with 
their productions. 

Our Workingmen Would Be Impoverished, 

enslaved, and degraded as the British 
Workingmen are to-day. 

The pUre-type Free-Traders are van- 
ishing from civilization like the Indian, 
and there are only a few left. The 
South, which once felt itself so ag- 
grieved by what it called "the thieving 
Tariff of the robber barons," and plead 
so importunately, in mingled tones of 
pathos and indignation, for its com- 
plete obliteration, sent its most poten- 
tial and intellectual Representatives 
before the Ways and Means Committee 
at the time the Dingley schedules were 
being written, asking Protection for 
its industries, and the generous an- 
swer to those fervent prayers is to be 
noted in the South's wonderful growth 
and complete recuperation from the 
blight of war and the extinction of its 
slave system. And, at this very time, 
when a revising down is proposed and 
advocated, she is making still more in- 
sistent and fervent demands that high 
duties be retained. The Free-Traders, 
who have come down to us from for- 
mer generations, are wiser than con- 
sistent in that they favor a Tariff on 
such articles as they deal in or mate- 
rials they manufacture, while at great 
length and with impassioned eloquence 
they plead for Free-Trade in every- 



thing else. So now it is the most diffi- 
cult task to find a man of affairs do- 
ing a part in the great industrial 
world who Is not fascinated by some 
particular Tariff schedule. 

Has Lifted ttie Country Up. 

It is not contended here that the 
Dingley schedules are the acme of per- 
fection, but they are about as near it 
as human judgment and calculation 
can get in striking a conservative, 
wholesome middle line between the ex- 
cesses and insufficiencies of Tariff taxa- 
tion. But it is an indubitable fact — 
one of the most prominent, interesting, 
and educative facts in our national 
history — that the Dingley Tariff lifted 
this country up from a prone prostra- 
tion, infused new vitality into the dy- 
ing body of the public credit, called 
back the tramping armies of tattered 
and despairing workingmen from the 
public highways to the reopened mills 
and factories, and with restored wages 
filled their homes anew with plenty, 
hope, and happiness. 

Fatfiers of the Republic Were Protection- 
ists. 

One thing stands out pre-eminently 
in the history of this country, and that 
is its builders and promotors have in- 
dorsed the principle of Protection; 
among them our first Presidents, 
Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jef- 
ferson, James Madison, and James 
INIonroe, who guided the destinies of 
this Republic through all the crises 
of its infancy and laid and broadened 
and strengthened the foundations upon 
which its peerless structure has been 
built. Daniel Webster, "the great ex- 
pounder of the Constitution," declared 
in a speech at Buffalo, N. Y., June, 
1833: 

The Protection of American labor 
against the injurious competition of 
foreign labor is known to have been 
one end designed to be obtained by 
establishing the Constitution. 

Years afterwards he declared that — 

domestic industry could not prosper, 
manufactures and mechanic arts could 
not advance, the condition could not be 
carried to any considerable elevation 
unless there should be one government 
to lay one rate of duty upon imports 
throughout the Union, regard to bo 
had in laying this duty to the Protec- 
tion of American labor and industry. 
Henry Clay, Rufus Choate, Fisher 



48 



BROWNLOW. 



Ames, Edward Everett, and, besides, a 
long roll of the most profound think- 
ers and the most sincere and earnest 
students of political science and econ- 
omy, have put on imperishable record 
their strong convictions in favor of 
Protection. 

Thomas B. Reed On the Vital Question 
of Wages. 

Thomas B. Reed is one of the most 
Impressive figures in American history. 
He g-ave lucidity and vital force to 
every question that engaged his earn- 
est thought and sincere approval. In 
his great speech against the Wilson 
bill in the House of Representatives 
February 1. 1894, he followed closely 
the line of argument Mr. Blaine made 
years before, not because he was not 
an original genius himself, but had 
been anticipated by the "plumed 
knight" of American statesmanship, 
and said, among other pertinent and 
convincing declarations: 

I confess to you that this question of 
wages is to me the vital question to 

we'aUh wi ^^°T^^ i^ civilization and 
wealth we must not only have wag--s 
as high as they are now, but cfn! 
stantly and steadily increasing. In my 

quent distribution of consumahlp 
wealth are based all our hopes o? the 
future and all the possible increase of 
civilization. The progress of this Na- 

iir Th^e'^f«"?%",' l^P.^^ *h^ progress'^Sf 
all. The fact that in this country all 
the workers have been getting better 
Tn^^^^"'^^ elsewhere is the vf ry rea- 
w^" 1^^'^ ^."^ market Is the best in the 
wnr^' ^"d why all the nations of the 
world are trying to break into it. 

Helps the Working People. 

In the periods of Protection the con- 
ditions of the laboring classes have 
been prosperous and happy. This has 
been the invariable rule, and this rule 
is as inexorable as the law of gravita- 
tlon. Every workingman in the United 
States, under the operations of a Tariff 
law. like the one of the present, with 
prudence and without the stint of nig- 
erardly economy can own his own home 
and have a good bank account upon 
which to depend in sickness or other 
misfortunes. He can enjoy all the 
comforts and many of the luxuries of 
lite. He can give his children all the 
mental training and equipment they 
need in the struggle for progress and 
betterment. He can own a library and 
buy all the current literature he and 



his family need to keep abreast with 
the spirit and culture of the times. 

He can be a king and stand before 
kings for his diligence, aspiration, and 
sovereignty. He can be one of the 
most Important and useful integers in 
the citizenship of America, for he is a 
master worker, builder, and promoter. 
upon whose industry, competency, and 
integrity the fortunes of the country 
are founded, built, and maintained. 

In Free-Trade England. 

England collects annually from cus- 
tom duties on articles which she does 
not produce and which the wage-earn- 
ers must have to sustain life, one hun- 
dred millions. The laborers pay more 
than three-fourths of this sum. They 
have no homes; they are simply herd- 
ing dens. Their houses are usually 
but one room, used by the family for 
all purposes. One out of 7 dies in the 
workhouse. The paupers are 1 to 
every 36 persons. A house owner 
among the workingmen is a rarity. . 
Women and girls by tens of thousands 
are compelled to do the most menial 
and exhausting drudgeries, such as 
working in nail shops, coal yards, 
brickyards, and coal mines, and in oth- 
er occupations of like degrading char- 
acter. Much more might be added in 
description of the harrowing condi- 
tions of labor in England. 

The truth to say, the British Free- 
Trade Tariff system is responsible for 
all this misery, want, degradation, and 
enslavement: and it is virtually and 
practically the very same odious and 
ruinous system that our Avild and reck- 
less Free-Traders would impose on us, 
to the like degeneration of our own 
working people. 

Benefits Realized By the South. 

President Taft said in his speech at 
the dinner of the North Carolina So- 
ciety of New York, at the Hotel Astor, 
December 7, 1908: 

In this marvelous growth the manu- 
factures of the South now exceed the 
Sf.7f''l^"''^^ products, and thus a com! 
^IV-^ ^^Hf "^^ has come over the charac- 
ter of her industries. The South has 
Wr°T^ J7f^'s ^"^ °^ly the surface of 
&r^.,T,^^^^^' ^'^^ ^^^^ scratched. Her 
growth has exceeded the rest of the 
country, and she is now in every wav 
sharing m its prosperity ^ ^ 



NYE. PARKER. 



49 



Protection has done the "scratching," 
and every true and ardent lover of the 
South desires that it go deeper than 
"scratching" and delve down, down 
Into the larger and richer treasuries 
that underlie the surface. He longs, 
prays, and works for the day when tlie 
disenthralled and rejuvenated South 
may come into her own, when she may 
attain the broadest development of her 
marvelous resources of natural wealth 
and the highest financial standing, 
when she may be covered with splen- 
did highways and filled with Lowells, 
Manchesters, and Pittsburgs, and there 
exists a perfect bond of sympathy, 
helpfulness, equality, and union be- 
tween her contented and rewarded la- 
bor and the capital that employs it. 



Our Prosperity and Advancement 
Have Been Largely Due to Protec- 
tion. 

From the Congressional Record of March 30, 
1909. 

FRANK M. NYE, of Minnesota. To- 
day, while I do not alaim everything 
for the Protective theory, and while I 
do not claim everything for any po- 
litical party, I believe that the stu- 
pendous wealth, the vast and diversi- 
fied industries of our covintry, its pros- 
perous condition on the whole, and its 
general advancement, have been large- 
ly due to a wise policy of Protection 
to American industries and American 
labor. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] 

A nation of but one employment, of 
but one industry. Is always a poor na- 
tion, always the slave of other nations; 
no matter what employment, if it be 
the most noble, perhaps agriculture, 
at the same time the mere producer of 
raw material for the improvement and 
manufacture of other nations, that na- 
tion will always be a slave. Not only 
that, but there will be a dead level of 
intelligence. The diversified employ- 
m.ents of men, the mills and the fac- 
tories where the inventive genius of 
men is quickened and thought is 
aroused and there is intellectual life 
and enterprise, that is the nation that 
will tower above the nation which 
produces raw material and lives to 
support other nations. 



The American System Which Gives 
Preference to Americans. 

From the Congressional Record of March 30, 
1909. 
R. WAYNE PARKER, of New Jer- 
sey. Mr. Chairman, we may well be 
glad that we have had this general 
debate, by which Members of the 
House have learned each other's need.s, 
and that all have their share in 
the American sj^stem, whereby every 
American gives a preference to Avhat 
comes from the American farm, forest, 
mine, and mill. North and South, East 
and West should have learned that it 
is no question of sectional advantage, 
but of the general benefit that flows 
from dealing with each other. It is no 
mere question of prices, nor is it one 
only of wages. It is not merely a 
money question, of profits or home 
markets, nor only a social question of 
the building up of communities, nor 
only a political question of creating a 
state of national independence for 
peace and war, nor is It only a na- 
tional question of uniting every em- 
ployment and every locality by mutual 
interests and mutual dealing. It is 
also a far greater question; that is, of 
the encouragement and organization of 
the productive forces of the Nation — 
the education of hand and mind in tliat 
progress in the mechanic arts, that in- 
dustrial development, that mastery of 
man over matter, that dominance of 
the powers of nature, which is the 
distinctive mark of modern civiliza- 
tion and which seems in every decade 
to revolutionize the lives and work of 
those nations who are wise enough to 
take part in that march. 

We are learning by this debate that 
industry is national, that the farm, the 
forest, the mine, and the mill can not 
be separated, but must be considered 
together; that we must not think only 
of ourselves, but of each other. We 
must encourage agriculture and the 
product of the soil. America would 
not be content to be dependent on 
other countries for her food, as Eng- 
land is now. 

Protection is no mere question of 
prices. The greatly reduced duties of 
the Payne bill assure us that Pro- 



50 



PARKER. 



tccted industries have usually gi'eatly 
lowered prices. A country town that 
gives land for a mill expects other 
benefits than low prices. The fathers 
of the Constitution were farmers, and 
they expected no cheaper prices, but 
dearer, when they passed the first Pro- 
tective Tariff for the encouragement of 
m.anufactures. 

A Tax that all Can Afford to Pay. 

If the Tariff makes higher prices, 
the Tariff is a tax, but every class can 
well afford to pay that tax. The 
farmer can well afford to pay to biring 
the mill into his own native land and 
near to himself }50 that he may sell his 
crop without loss of pY'ice in the profits 
■of jobbers and exporters and in foreign 
freights. He can then market bulky 
crop^ like hay, and perishable crops 
like fruits, vegetables, and milk, and 
thus bring into use different soils, 
preserve fertility, and diversify agrl- 
-culture. His own nation will buy of 
him all that they need evei*y year, 
v/hile other countries bhly buy when 
their own crops are short. In foreign 
trade we already have great rivals in 
wheat, and Egypt teaches us not to 
be too confident of our monopoly of 
cotton. The American farmer should 
find his hope and strength in the ever- 
expanding home market created by 
protected industry. 

But the farmer gets still greater 
.good from the building up of com- 
munities. Manufacture and business 
demand and create facilities In which 
he shares — roads, railroads, store?, 
towns, schools, libraries, churches, tel':^- 
graphs, trolleys, newspapers — and in 
p.U these the farmer's growing family 
find education and employment accord- 
ing to their several bent and ability. 
Thereby the nation becomes strong in 
that productive power which is its real 
wealth. Each occupation helps the 
other. It is the American machine 
shop that puts the sewing machine in 
every farmer's house and the reaper in 
his fields. 

Free-Traders say that the country 
would lay by more money if it would 
only do what is most profitable for the 
time, but the fall of the Spanish King- 
dom proved that mere, accumulated 
Avealth may be weakness instead of 
strength. It is not weight that makes 
the man, but balanced and vigorous 



muscles. It Is not bonds and stocks 
a.nd the profits of trade that make the 
nation, but the power to produce in 
greatest quantity everything that is 
needed for peace or war. 

To Keep Our People in Productive Em- 
ployment. 

We should Protect our industries 
whether they pay or not, in order to 
keep our people in every productive 
em.ployment wherein they may learn to 
do better. 

Physicians tell us that one-seventh 
of the human body is wasted and re- 
placed in every year. Figures seem 
to show that in the live and active na- 
tion the same is true of the property of 
a nation. It is the power to produce, 
the powei* to teplace and to grow, 
which is oUr "common wealth," the res 
publica; and it is this productive power 
-which the Republican party, as the 
party of the Commonwealth, has known 
how to foster and maintain. 

There is a moral to all this. The 
productive energy of the farmer, the 
woodman, the stock raiser, the miner, 
and the mill, of our captains of in- 
dustry, our railroad organizers, and 
our greatest land owners, as well as of 
the humblest workmen and hands in 
their employ^ is equally deserving of 
Protection. We must be careful, it is 
true, that We do not confuse produc- 
tion with waste of natural resources, 
but away with the idea that a man 
should not be encouraged becaxise what 
he makes is the raw material for some 
other man, or that an industry should 
not be Protected because its products 
could be bought cheaper abroad. It is 
the work that is valuable for itself, 
and not its product. It is the educa- 
tion and progress of our people in 
every branch of human productive en- 
ergy which we must look to. If the 
Tariff be sometimes a tax, it is a 
school tax for our training in every 
branch of handicraft and of productive 
eipployment. 

To do good to the least of these our 
brethren is to do good to our-selves. 
Each member that is at work helps 
tiie whole body politic. To exercise 
the arm sends life-giving streams into 
the whole body. Let us keep our peo- 
ple at useful work, so that "the whole 
body fitly joined together and com- 



PAUKEK. KENNED i'. 



51 



pacted by that which every joint sup- 
plieth, according to the effectual work- 
ing in the measure of every part, 
maketh increase of the body unto the 
edifying of itself in love," 

My city is one of mills, with thou- 
sands of different industries and fifty or 
sixty thousand workmen. I would not 
ask Protection for a single one if I 
did not believe that the energies which 
they display work for the good of the 
Natioii. 

A Creator of Strength and Productive 
Power. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe in a Protect- 
ive Tariff; not because it gives any 
man wealth, but because it teaches the 
whole Nation to recognize that national 
wealth lies in the organization and 
Protection of all our work, so that it is 
done better from day to day; so that 
our people are learning by the only 
effectual schooling, which is that of 
doing things; and so as to create that 
independence in peace and in war that 
has made us the greatest Nation of the 
world; where the arteries of commerce 
reach on iron rails from sea to sea; 
where the nerve currents speed over 
the wires of the telegraph with the 
rapidity of lightning; where the pul- 
sating hearts of our steam engines give 
giant power that we can control and 
manage, each in his little place; and 
where American invention finds full 
play and scope. It is a system whose 
end is not to lay by wealth, but to 
create that which is of so much more 
importance than wealth — strength and 
productive power. 

It is nearly a century ago that Fred- 
erick List, afterwards the father of 
German Protection, laid down in this 
country the fundamental doctrine that 
a nation's well-being lies in its pro- 
ductive power. Without it all the 
wealth of England fills its poorhouses 
and streets with the unemployed. With 
it each man, by vi'^ork, is better day by 
day, and it can only be had if, like the 
great fathers of the doctrine of Pro- 
tection, we recognize that every form 
of production throughout this broad 
land is equally worthy of being consid- 
ered, encouraged, and preferred in all 
our dealings, binding us together as 
one Nation in heart, as we are one in 
interest. [Applause.] 



The Principle Which McKinley Advo= 
cated and Wrote into Our Tariff 
System. 

From the Congressional Record of March 31, 
1909. 

JAMES KENNEDY, of Ohio. I am a 
Protectionist. I was reared in an en- 
vironment of Protection. I represent a 
district which was once represented by 
McKinley upon the floor of this House. 
We are Protectionists there. We be- 
lieve in that same principle which Mc- 
Kinley so ably advocated and wrote 
into our Tariff system. 

Gentlemen upon the other side of this 
House are continuallj' talking about 
the law of supply and demand and that 
all Tariffs ought to be placed upon a 
competitive basis. The Protectionist is 
not troubled about the constitutional 
power vested in Congress to, by a rev- 
enue bill, do many other things than 
merely to raise revenues. By a tax 
law, the primary object of which was 
not to raise revenue, we put out of cir- 
culation a character of bank currency 
which the people wished to have re- 
tired, and we, as Republicans, believe 
that we have ample power to and 
ought to stimulate production -within 
our country by limiting the zone of 
supply for our internal demands. Thus 
we have and do, every time the Repub- 
licans pass a Tariff bill, modify and 
amend that old law of supply and de- 
mand. The Dinglej' bill was an amend- 
ment to this law of supplj^ and de- 
mand about which Democrats are for- 
ever talking. The great apostles of 
Protection in this country have said 
that by limiting the zone of supply we 
would indefinitely increase the produc- 
tion of certain articles so that the 
supply would equal the demand. The 
Dingley bill was such a bill, and bow 
it carried out and verified the predic- 
tions of the old Republican masters! 

Faults of a Tariff for Revenue. 

The Dingley bill has been criticised 
by the able gentleman from Alabama 
because, as he said, in the year 1905, 
while there was only a little over 
$500,000,000 worth Of goods affected by 
certain schedules, which he criticised 
as prohibitorj-- schedules, which were 
imported into this country and upon 
which the Government received a rev- 
enue, there were over $13,000,000,003 



52 



KENNEDY. 



worth of such commodities manufac- 
tured in our country. By the clearest 
inference in the world, it was and is 
admitted by the opponents of the Pro- 
tective principle that production was 
wonderfully stimulated In all these 
Protected articles which were produced 
within the restricted zone of supply by 
this legislation, which did amend the 
law of supply and demand. Do gentle- 
men upon the other side, for the mere 
purpose of getting a larger revenue 
out of these schedules, wish to close 
down the great American factory — re- 
duce its output so that the demand for 
manufactured goods in America shall 
be met and satisfied by goods produced 
by the labor of strangers living in oth- 
er lands? To what extent would they 
increase the zone of supply? What 
aliquot part of the $13,000,000,000 
worth of manufactured goods which we 
now produce would Democrats take 
from the iron and steel workers of my 
district and yours, to have those goods 
manufactured in some other country 
and shipped in here so that we could 
get some revenue by the change? 

4 Vicious Policy. 

It does violence to every sense of 
fairness which I possess to hear peo- 
ple on this floor talking now of chang- 
ing again this law of supply and de- 
mand for the purpose of bringing 
goods from other lands merely for the 
purpose of getting revenue upon them. 
I do not believe that any effort should 
be made to place our Protected indus- 
tries upon a competitive basis. The 
competition which foreign goods in 
those lines of production where we can 
and ought to produce all that we con- 
sume has never benefited anyone and 
always has been productive of indus- 
trial unrest and discontent, so that 
when prices have been reduced by the 
influx of foreign goods into our coun- 
try, those great factories, workshops, 
and mills, where labor is all organized 
in this country, where it is rightfully 
contending for its just dues in our civ- 
ilization, industrial war commences. 
When we have home competition, labor 
and capital have been able to go for- 
ward in peace. They adjust their dif- 
ferences without trouble. But when 
menaced by foreign goods.. there comes 
a danger which they can not anticipate 
or measure; then naturally and neces- 



sarily follow misunderstanding and 
disagreement about the raising or cut- 
ting of wages. The interests which 
have been highly Protected under the 
Dingley bill have adjusted themselves 
to that law. They have invested money 
in accordance with It. They have gen- 
erally entered into a fair and generous 
rivalry, which we call "home competi- 
tion," and now any change which we 
make from the schedules in the Ding- 
ley bill affecting these interests should 
bo made with the greatest care. 

Protection Does Not Necessarily Enhance 
Prices. 

Opponents of tlie principles of Pro- 
tection forever contend that Protection 
necessarily enhances prices. They give 
entirely too much credit to the impor- 
tation of foreign goods for lowering 
prices in the past. 

The encouragement by past legisla- 
tion of great manufacturing enter- 
prises has all along the line lowered 
prices of such articles in this country 
to a point where now it can be as- 
serted with confidence that never be- 
fore in the history of this country was 
the price of like articles so low in com- 
parison with all other articles of value 
as it Is to-day. When I left home to 
come down to attend this session of 
Congress a farmer could exchange 4 
pounds of butter for a hundred-pound 
keg of wire nails; 40 dozens of eggs 
would buy a ton of pig Iron. It almost 
seems that one would be better off to 
own a little chicken farm near some 
great industrial center than to own a 
blast furnace. A farmer out in Ne- 
braska is said not long ago to have 
gone to a general merchandise store to 
purchase a buggy. He was shown a 
very nice buggy, and told that its price 
was $62. He said: "I bought a buggy 
like that in 1896 for $50." This was 
promptly denied, but the farmer in- 
sisted that he was right. The store- 
keeper consulted his books and re- 
turned, saying he was mistaken, "but 
3'ou paid in exchange for tliat buggy 
500 bushels of corn at 10 cents per 
bushel. Corn is now 60 cents per 
bushel, and if you will bring in 500 
bushels of corn now I will give you 
that buggy at $62. I will give you a 
sulky cultivator at $25, I will give .you 
a reaper and binder worth $125, I will 



KENNEDY. ED\VAUDi4. 



give you $50 in money, and I will ha\e 
still ?38." 

Without Home Competition Prices Are 
Always Exorbitant. 

There Is abundant evidence that in 
every line of merchandise that is im- 
ported Into this counti-y the importers 
are most thoroughlj' combined, and, as 
in the c-ase of pottery, other prices are 
most exorbitant where we have not 
liome competition. We are, then, at 
their mercj' absolutely, and t\\QY do ex- 
actly what the Government of Brazil is 
now doing with respect to coffee. Bra- 
zil substantially has our coffee mar- 
ket, and believing as they do that we 
must buy our coffee from them, they 
are putting on coffee an export -duty, 
and the limit of their extortion will be 
reached onlj' when the American con- 
sumer refuses to use Brazilian coffee. 
This fact justifies the countervailing 
duty upon coffee. 

The Protective feature of a revenue 
bill performs the function of a barrier 
or wall to prevent the coming in of 
goods. Where our Tariffs should be 
Protective the greatest care should be 
exercised in keeping them high 
enough; when they relate to these 
things which our people should pro- 
duce they should be prohibitive. 

Our ad valorem duties have been 
levied always in the most unscientific 
way. Every ad valorem duty should 
be based on the price in this country. 
The ad valorem duty should be the 
ideal duty. Every just tax is based 
upon the value of the thing taxed and 
should be the value at the place where 
taxed. Goods are coming now to this 
country from Japan that are selling 
here at wholesale at an advance of 
500 per cent of the price in Japan upon 
which they pay duty. Great potteries 
are being constructed now in both 
China and Japan intended to manufac- 
ture potter3' for our market. 



Protection Benefits Every Section by 
Furnishing a Demand for the Pro= 
ducts of All Sections. 

From the Congressional Record of March ji, 
/pop. 
DON C. EDWARDS, of Kentucky. 
Much li^s bf^en said in the hearings on 



tliis bill and in these debates about the 
consumer. When I speak for the lum- 
ber industry and for the coal industry, 
I am pleading for fair consideration of 
the millions who labor in these Indus- 
tries. They are the consumers and buy 
eveiTthing that they consume. They 
are the farmer's best customers. If 
you put coal on the free list and re- 
duce the Tariff on rough lumber from 
$2 per thousand to $1 per thousand, as 
proposed in this bill, and the farmers 
and manufacturers get their lumber 
and coal from Canada, they will de- 
stroy their best markets. If these re- 
ductions will not bring coal and lum- 
ber from Canada, then it will do no 
harm to leave them as they are in the 
present law. 

Much has been said in these debates 
about sectionalism. Mr. Chairman, in 
my opinion the only way to prevent a 
sectional law is to give full and fair 
consideration to every section and just 
Protection to every industry. If the 
theory of Protection is sound, its bene- 
fits can not long be confined to the im- 
mediate locality in which the Protected 
industry is situated, but will, by giv- 
ing employment to labor, furnish a de- 
mand for the products of other sec- 
tions. The coal miner buys his pro- 
visions from the farmer and his wear- 
ing apparel and house furnishings from 
tlie manufactui'er, but has no quarrel 
with either. Because, in turn, they buy 
his coal, and while he lives in one sec- 
tion and they in another, each Is de- 
pendent upon the other. The coal miner 
is making no unreasonable demand, but 
when gentlemen on this floor make 
earnest appeals for cheaper fuel for 
the American fireside, they should not 
forget the man who digs the coal. I 
would not, in any way, check the pros- 
perity of the farmer, or in the least 
add to his burdens, for he is the salt 
of the earth. But his prosperity de- 
pends upon the prosperity and employ- 
ment of labor, and not among the least 
of .these are the coal miners. I have 
been a farmer many years of my life. 
I never owned a coal mine, but my 
sympathy goes out for the man who 
lives in an humble cottage of two or 
three rooms, and who takes his dinner 
pail in one hand, his coal pick in the 
other, and, after kissing his wife and 
children good-by, goes into the bowels 
of the earth to dig coal that they may 
be fed and clothed and educated — often 



54 



KDWARDS. GUERNSEY. 



in mud and water, sometimes encoun- 
tering the falling- slate and deadly 
gases from ■which he never returns. 

Mr. Chairman, if this be sectional, 
then I plead guilty of sectionalism. If 
this be in the interest of the producer 
and not of the consumer, then I am 
guilty of that. 

Mr. Chairman, believing that what is 
best for the whole country will in the 
end be best for every community and 
our individual homes, I shall bow in 
submission to the decision of the ma- 
jority on these questions. And when 
every man has had his say and this 
bill is put upon its passage, I shall ac- 
cord to all gentlemen that same degree 
of patriotism and honesty of purpose 
which I claim for myself. Although 
he may differ from me, I shall not 
doubt that he, too, is performing his 
duty as God has given him the light 
to see it. I thank you. [Loud ap- 
plause.] 



Tariff On Wood Pulp and Paper 
Needed in Order to Properly Pro= 
tect Those Industries. 

From the Congressional Record of March 31, 
1909. 

FRANK E. GUERNSEY, of Maine. 
Let not Congress drive the paper mak- 
ers into Canada and render valueless 
the homes that they have built in the 
United States, for if the proposed 
change in the pulp and paper sched- 
ules accomplishes anj'thing or any- 
where near what is predicted for it, it 
will of necessity transfer a great por- 
tion of the paper-making business from 
the United States to Canada. 

Already American investors of large 
means have accumulated vast terri- 
tories of timber lands within Canada's 
domains, and are only waiting favora- 
ble opportunity to construct pulp and 
paper plants upon them for the purpose 
of supplying the American market, 
which will at once strike a hea•V3^ If 
not a fatal, blow to American indus- 
tries in this same line and destroy the 
investments of the home builders of 
the United States. 



I am well aware that the great cry 
that has gone up all over this country 
in favor of the conservation of the for- 
ests has had much to do with the de- 
mand for a lowering of Tariff rates. 
If the Tariff rates result in the closing 
of our mills and the land owner and 
the farmer lose the market for his tim- 
ber and his wood, our forests will in- 
crease in some localities, while in oth- 
ers they would not. 

Good prices for lumber products 
make the land owner more careful of 
the manner in which his land is cut. 
Forty years ago, when prices were 
low, there was needless waste in the 
operation of timber" land. To-day the 
land owner, as a rule, throws every 
safeguard possible around the method 
of cutting his land. The paper com- 
panies cut in a manner that will in- 
sure the continued reproduction by 
their forests. The farmer and the small 
tnnber-land owner look upon his wood 
lot and his tract as he does upon his 
bank account. 

What I liave said relative to the pulp 
and paper industry in an equal degree 
applies to the free importation of 
manufactured lumber, which is advo- 
cated by man3'. If free lumber has any 
effect, it will sharpen competition with 
our sawmills and probably close up 
many. 

While I have dwelt very largelj'^ in 
my remarks on the pulp and paper in- 
dvistry froin a Maine standpoint, yet 
what I have said I believe will apply 
to the industry in the country gener- 
ally. I listened w^ith a great deal of 
interest to the gentleman from Illi- 
nois, Mr. Mann, chairman of the Spe- 
cial Committee on the Investigation of 
the Pulp and Paper Industry of this 
country, as it showed exhaustive and 
most careful consideration, and while 
the gentleman in his general conclu- 
sions at the closing of his remarks de- 
clared that he did not believe that the 
changes in the Tariff schedules, as 
made by the pending measure and 
based upon the report of his commit- 
tee, would injuriously affect the paper 
industry in this country or transfer 
the paper industry or any great por- 
tion of it across the border, yet he did 
declare tliat eventually he believed the 
manufacture of ground wood pulp 
would bo transferred to the backwoods 
of Canada. 



GUERNSEY. CUSIIMAN. 



55 



What assurance can the gentleman 
from Illinois give that if the manufac- 
ture of ground wood pulp, which is 
made free under this bill, is trans- 
ferred to the backwoods of the great 
country north of us, that the paper in- 
dustry and the paper makers of the 
United States will not be obliged to 
follow? 

What assurance has the gentleman 
from Illinois that it would be profita- 
ble to transport heavy and bulky 
ground wood pulp, which contains, it 
is stated, at least 40 per cent of water, 
from 500 to 1,000 miles from the north- 
ern woods of Canada to our paper mills 
here, in order that it may be manu- 
factured into paper in the United 
States? 

I believe that to be contrary to gen- 
eral experience. Industries are apt 
to seek the sovirce of their supply of 
raw material when possible. I believe 
if the ground wood pulp industry even- 
tually goes to Canada, as the gentle- 
man from Illinois confesses it may, 
that it will be followed by the paper 
maker. 

In conclusion, let nie say that I be- 
lieve the Dingley Tariff schedules re- 
lating to these industries should be 
continued or re-enacted in the present 
measure. This should be done in jus- 
tice to the home builders in the paper- 
making towns, in justice to the leading 
industry of Maine. [Applause on the 
Republican side.] 

The Benefits of Protection. 

The Republican party has always 
maintained that a Protective Tariff 
w^as not class legislation; that it was 
not for the benefit of the manufactur- 
ers; but that it serves the double pur- 
pose of bringing to the Government the 
necessary revenues and, in addition 
thereto, scatters its blessings to every 
section of the country and to the peo- 
ple in every occupation and calling. 

Our Democratic friends, however, 
continue to repeat that a Protective 
Tariff is class legislation; that the 
manufacturers alone are benefited, and 
that the people — the consumers — under 
a system of Protection are taxed for 
the benefit of the manufacturers. That 
the Republicans are right in their con- 
tention has been demonstrated over 
and over again in the history of our 
country. 



"Everybody Has a Perfect Tariff 
Bin===in His Mind," Said the late 
Thomas B. Reed. 

From the Congressional Record of March 31 
and April i, 1909. 

FRANCIS W. CUSHMAN, of Wash- 
ington. The framing of a Tariff bill 
is surrounded with difficulties and em-, 
barrassments that are not understood 
by all the people of this Nation at 
large. It is not easy to revise the 
Tariff and produce a perfect bill. 

Thomas B. Reed once said: 

"Did a perfect Tariff bill ever exist? 
Oh, yes. Wliere? Why, in your mind, 
of course. Everybody has a perfect 
Tariff bill in his mind, but unfortu- 
nately a bill of that character has no 
extra-territorial jurisdiction." 

[Laughter.] 

Difficulties that Surround the Bui/ding of 
an American Tariff. 

1 had an experience in my youth 
that I think illustrates some of the 
difficulties that surround the building 
of an American Tariff. 

The present populous and thrifty 
State of Wyoming twenty-five years 
ago was a sparsely settled territory 
possessing a few towns that struggled 
on with the ambition to be cities, pos- 
sessing many frontier settlements each 
surrounded with a fringe of empty tin 
cans, a horizon of sage brush, and an 
unlimited destiny. [Laughter and ap- 
plause.] The great Laramie Plains 
stretched out on the bosom of that 
broad domain like the open hand of 
the Infinite. Along the northern bor- 
der of these plains rose the Laramie 
Mountains, and from out the surround- 
ing and lesser hills rose old Laramie 
Peak standing like a mighty sentinel 
upon the horizon. 

A quarter of a century ago, a lad in 
my teens, barefooted and footsore, I 
walked across those plains and to- 
ward that old mountain peak that 
seemed to beckon to me when I had 
nowhere else to go. 

Underneath the shadow of that ma- 
jestic mountain my mother, my broth- 
er, and I built our little cabin hom*^. 
It was only a cabin built of logs, but 
it sheltered hearts as pure and hopes 
as exalted as ever existed beneath the 
sweep of the Almighty stars. [Ap- 
plause.] 



56 



CUSHMAN. 



A Wonderful Log House. 

That structure in my judgment to- 
day constitutes the eighth wonder of 
the world. Certain it is that on all the 
wide bosom of the planet it has no 
coimterpart, because the ordinary 
dwelling is rectangular in shape and 
tlie opposite sides and ends are of the 
same length. Not so with that struc- 
ture. There were four of us who 
builded that cabin — one to each side — 
and each fellow made his own particu- 
lar side of the length he thought it 
ought to be without any reference to 
the length that the other fellow was 
making his side. [Laughter.] And 
when we got through and took the ex- 
act measurements we had a cabin that 
was 161/^ by 17 by 221/2 by 24 on the 
ground, and sloped up at different an- 
gles and dimensions as it rose toward 
the roof. 

Jack and Jim and brother Ed and I 
were the four workmen who builded 
that mighty structure. And for the 
past quarter of a century each one has 
contended that it would have been a 
monvmient of architectural perfection 
and a dream of symmetrical beaixty 
had it not been for the other three 
fools whose lack of sense spoiled it. 

But, sir, there it stands on the hill- 
side to-day, hospitable, but hideous. It 
is a monument to the fact that when 
four men start to build a house that 
the final product will be a composite 
photograph of the brains, or lack of 
brains, of all of them. 

"391 Boss Carpenters, Each With a Tariff 
Broadax." 

And the same thing, my friends, is 
true of a Tariff bill. We have here 
in this House 391 boss carpenters, each 
with a Tariff broadax, who will whit- 
tle and chop away at this measure to 
their hearts' content, taking orders 
from no one else. And then we have 
92 eminent gentlemen in the- Senate, 
at the other end of this Capitol, and 
after we have finished with the bill 
each one of them will hew away at it 
unrestrained by anything save the tear 
of God and the approaching election! 
[Laughter and applause.] 

And thus it sometimes happens, sir, 
that when the American Congress after 
a fierce and prolonged struggle brings 
forth a so-called finished Tariff bill 



and sets it up on the hillside for the 
inspection of the American public it is 
found to be like that little cabin out in 
the valley of the Laramie Mountains — 
a little out of plum.b. [Laughter.] 

There are theorists and dreamers of 
dreams who say they expect to live to 
see the day when the Tariff question 
shall be removed from the domain of 
American politics. 

So long as our revenues are derived 
from the Tarife, just that long Avill the 
Tariff question remain a live Issue In 
American politics. 

"Like Peacf) Pie Without Any Peaches." 

American politics with the Tariff left 
out would be like peach pie without 
any peaches, or like the play of Ham- 
let with the melancholy Dane omitted. 

I Am a Protectionist. 

Speaking for myself, sir, I am a Pro- 
tectionist, without any qualifying ad- 
jectives. I am not only a Protection- 
ist, but a high Protectionist. 

I believe in the Protection of Ameri- 
can industry and the Protection of 
American labor — yes, I believe in it 
like the heathen believes in his idol. 

That may sound a little strange in 
these degenerate days, when a great 
many men don't seem to have any 
fixed convictions on any subject but 
act like human weather vanes trying 
to point in any direction that the shift- 
ing breeze of popularity or prejudice 
may temporarily indicate. 

When I say that I am a Protectionist, 
I thank my God I don't have to apolo- 
gize to anybody for that belief. I can 
plant the feet of my faith on the 
pages of my country's history. [Ap- 
plause.] 

Time and again in experience, and 
by the light of history, I have seen the 
industries of my nation flourish under 
Protection, and I have seen them fade 
under Free-Trade— or Tariff for rev- 
enue only, which is another name for 
Free-Trade. 

"Protection All the Way Through, and 
Not In Spots." 

If a man is a genuine Protectionist 
he believes in Protection all the way 
through — and not in spots. A genuine 
Protectionist wants the industries of 
his own region Protected, and is will- 



ClISHMAN. 



ing to grant that same right to other 
people and other industries. 

Frequently you will hear a man say, 
"I am a Protectionist, but I am in fa- 
vor of free lumber," or "I am a Pro- 
tectionist, but I am In favor of free 
hides." The man whose Republican 
convictions are not any deeper than 
his selfishness is not a Protectionist, 
The man who wants his own industries 
Protected, but who is willing to leave 
his neiglibor's industry naked to the 
competition of the world, is not a Re- 
publican; he is just a common political 
(. i'iinibal, willing- to eat up his neigh- 
bor. 

For the man who really believes in 
Protection, I have the greatest admira- 
tion. 

For the man who honestlj' believes 
in Free-Trade, I have at least respect. 
I do not agree with him, but I re- 
spect his consistency. 

But for the spotted animal who 
wants his industry Protected and his 
neighbor's industrj' left naked to the 
industrial winds of all the world, I 
have neither admiration nor respect. 

Two Great Achievements of the Repub- 
lican Party. 

The two great achievements of the 
Republican party in its political life- 
time have been, first, the settlement 
and adjustment of those vexed ques- 
tions which grew out of the great 
civil war — ^^how happily forgiven if not 
forgotten; second, the building of a 
great and prosperous industrial sys- 
tem under the Protecting wing of an 
American Tariff law. 

If you take away from the record of 
the Republican party all the splendid 
fruits that have grown under its S3's- 
tem of Protection, 3-011 will find but lit- 
tle left. 

The Democratic leaders may rail 
about the sj-stem of Protection and 
promise grander returns to the labor- 
ing man under their chosen plan, but 
there is an old saying that "the proof 
of the pudding is in the chewing of the 
string." The promises of the Demo- 
cratic party have been infinite — but 
where are Its performances? 

As Empty as a Seashell. 

I have heard a number of eminent 
gentlemen on the Democratic side of 



this House speaking in the last few 
daj's in behalf of a Tariff for revenue. 
I heard the young gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sheppard] deliver one of 
the most finished and beautiful ora- 
tions I have heard in many a day. As 
a literary product, pure and simple, I 
am willing to add my leaf to the 
wreath which the Democrats of this 
House laid at his feet when he con- 
cluded. 

But as a historic justification of the 
policy and the performances of the 
Democratic party it was as empty as 
the seashell which sings in j'our ear 
from sheer emptiness. 

My Texas friend spoke feelingly of 
two Democratic Free-Trade laws which 
had vindicated themselves in opera- 
tion. What two laws were they? He 
spoke of the acts of 1824 and 1847. 
The last of those laws was enacted 
sixtj'-seven years ago. Has the Demo- 
cratic partj^ no history since sixty- 
seven shears ago? My j'oung friend 
does not appear to be an old man, and 
yet I marveled much at two things: 
First, how he was able to remember 
so accurately the effects of a Tariff 
bill that was enacted some thirtj'' years 
before he was born, and, second, how 
he could so utterly forget the Demo- 
cratic Wilson bill that was enacted 
during his lifetiine. 

He appealed to the imaginations of 
men, I appeal to their recollections. 
He sought to vindicate a theory. I re- 
fer to a demonstration. He wandered 
in the realms of fancy, I turn the 
pages of historj' to recently recorded 
facts. 

In 1894 we tried the same policy that 
is to-day advocated by the Free-Trade 
or Tariff-for-revenue side of this 
House, and the question rises before us 
to-daj', "How did j'our theory work 
when 3'ou tried it last?" It was a hu- 
miliating failure, 

"If a Did Not Work Then, What Makes 
You Think It Will Work Now?" 

Well, we have the same countr3' here 
now that we had then; we have the 
same people that we had then; we 
have the same industries that we had 
then; we have the same soil beneath 
us and the same sky above us. If it 
did not work then, what makes you 
think it will work now? [Applause.] 

I regret tha ^ thpre .'^eems to be 



rrsiiMAN. 



growing up in this country a disposi- 
tion on tlie part of some of our Re- 
publican bretliren to drift away a little 
from tlie doctrine of Protection. 

Tliat same disposition was manifest 
in this Nation just before the last 
Democratic victory. Tlieir victory was 
due then more to our weakness and 
vacillation than to the strength of 
their o^vn cause. Are you going to 
help create a similar result again? 

What the Republicans of this Nation 
need to-day more tlian thej'- need all 
things else is to have their faith re- 
newed. 

There is an okl saying that "the 
blood of the martyr is the seed of the 
church." By that it was meant that 
the blood of the persecuted strength- 
ened the faith of the living. The 
church was stronger after the sacrifice 
than before. 

If I might paraphrase that old say- 
ing I would exclaim that "the destruc- 
tion of American industries is the seed 
of Republican faith." 

In other words, some Republicans 
seem to require a disastrous demon- 
stration of Democratic doctrines about 
every ten or fifteen years in order to 
strengthen their faith in their own 
belief. 

So far as I am concerned I don't need 
to have my faith half-soled. My mem- 
ory is still working. 

I have certain fixed con\ictions, and 
one of those convictions is in favor of 
a high Protective Tariff law, and on 
that I am willing to plant my feet and 
go up or down witli it. [Applaiise.] 

"How High Ought Protection to Be?" 

Some man asks, "Well, liow high 
ought Protection to be?" My friends, 
you can not figure out in degrees or 
percentages how high a Tariff ought 
to be. In my judgment an American 
Protective Tariff ought to be high 
enough to Protect the industries that 
it was built to defend; and no Tariff 
wall, however altitudinous, that has 
that object in view lias any terrors 
for me. 

I was raised on tlie farm. We had a 
"br-eachy" old mare in those days that 
was in the liabit of jumping into the 
corn field. We started in to raise the 
heiglit of that rail fence. We raised it 
from five rails to six rails, but that did 
not stop Iut; we raised it from six 



rails to seven rails, but that did not 
stop her; we raised it from seven rails 
to eight rails, but that did not stop 
her; but when we added the ninth rail 
we reached the limit of her .vaulting 
capacit3^ For the purposes of Protec- 
tion, had that fence been one rail less, 
it might as well have been "a painted 
ship upon a painted ocean." [Applaiise 
on the Republican side.] 

The way to build a Tariff wall is to 
build it high enough to Protect. I 
knew a man once who fell into a cis- 
tern. He was a verj^ tall man. He 
was 6 feet tall. Now, the water in that 
cistern was only 6 feet and 2 inches 
deep, only 2 short inches over his head; 
but he drowned as effectually as if he 
had been dropped into the depths of 
the unfathomable ocean. [Laughter.] 

You talk about lowering the Tariff 
■wall by degrees or per cents. You may 
only lower the Tariff on a given arti- 
cle 2 per cent, but that 2 per cent may 
be like the last two inches of water 
in that cistern — just enough to destroy. 
And when you lower a Tariff wall 
enough to destroy an American indus- 
try, the blood of that industry is on 
your hands. 

Stick to the Diet That Agrees With You. 

In its inception in America the Pro- 
tective Tariff found its justification in 
the fact that it built up our infant in- 
dustries. 

In its maturity the Protective Tariff 
finds its justification in tlie fact that 
it is the mightiest single instrument 
in this Nation for maintaining the pros- 
peiitj^ of all classes and all sections of 
our common country. 

Some men will say, "Well, I did not 
object to it when our Nation was 
young, but how long are you going to 
continue to Protect these industries?" 

Let me tell you a little story that 
answers that qurstion: 

A few years ago I had a very fierce 
attack of indigestion. I had been eat- 
ing all kinds of truck that no human 
stomach should ever try to assimilate. 
In the midst of my troubles I went to 
a doctor who put me on a very simple 
diet of rice and boiled eggs and brown 
broad and fresh beef, etc. 

I soon got into first-i-ate sliapc 
again. And then my old appetite re- 
turned. 1 longed to eat plum pudding 
and fi-uit cakr; J lia 1 a hankering for 



CUISIIMAN. 



50 



hot mince pie. and the contents of the 
seductive chafing dish — that tastes so 
good going- down and so bad coming up. 

Finally one day I spoke to the doc- 
tor and said: 

"How lorg do you expect me to keep 
on this diet you have prescribed for 
me?" 

He said to me: "Young man, don't 
you think it would be a good idea for 
j'ou to stick to that diet as long as it 
agrees with you?" 

And I say to the American people 
that it will be an almighty good idea 
for us, as a Nation, to stick to the Pro- 
tective Tariff as long as it agrees with 
our welfare and our prosperity. 

And when men tell you that Pro- 
tection does not agree with us as a 
Nation, ask them to point out to you 
some other national diet that when 
tried agreed with us better. 

Some of these Free-Trade notions 
are like the contents of the chafing 
dish — they are fair to look upon, but 
are followed by terrible results when 
absorbed into the ss^stem. 

Men will talk about things being 
"cheap" and being "dear." Did it ever 
occur to you that the two terms cheap 
and dear are relative terms and not 
absolute? Nothing in this vv^orld is 
dear at any price if you can procure 
it with financial ease. And nothing In 
this world is cheap at any price if you 
haven't got the money to get it. [Ap- 
plause on the Republican side.] 

The Price of Products Rests Upon the 
Price of Labor. 

You say you are going to bring 
down the price of products and the 
price of living. How are you going 
to do it? The price of products in all 
free countries on earth rests upon the 
price of labor — because it is labor that 
makes the product. The only kind of 
a countrj^ on earth where the price of 
labor does not control the price of 
products is in a slave country where 
labor is unpaid. When labor is high, 
the things that labor produces are 
likewise high — they are bound to be. 
You talk about keeping down the price 
of commodities without lowering the 
price of labor. 

It was old Archimedes who once said 
that given a fulcrum on which to rest 
his lever he could move the world. 
When you attempt to adjust your lever 



to bring down the price of living ex- 
penses and commodities, there is only 
one fulcrum on earth upon which you 
can rest that lever, and that is the 
price of labor and wages. 

And when you rest your lever on 
that fulcrum, for every incli you pry 
down commodities you will lower labor 
two inches. [Applause.] That is the 
place where your philosophy lands you. 

Employment Far More Abundant Than 
When the Democratic Party Was in 
Power. 

Any man who walks abroad over 
this Nation to-day will find employ- 
ment far more abundant than it was 
when your party, the Democratic 
party, was in power. You appeal to 
the American laborer to-day with an 
imaginative condition. You display be- 
fore his eyes some kind of a. Utopian 
condition under which 3^ou say that 
wages shall be high and all other 
things shall be cheap. That condition 
never has existed in six thousand 
years of the world's recorded history 
and it never will exist. 

The conditions that the Republican 
party have created in this Nation in 
the past twelve years are not only re- 
corded on the pages of industrial his- 
tory, but, what is more, they are en- 
shrined in the grateful hearts of 90,- 
000,000 American people. [Applause 
on the Republican side.] 

Now, then, my friend from Missouri 
[Mr. Clark] has spoken very feel- 
ingly about his desire to have the 
price of commodities and living ex- 
penses and lumber come down, but the 
gentleman never raised his voice to 
congratulate the laborers of this coun- 
try on the fact that wages were high. 
If anybody ever hears of a leading 
Democrat in this Nation congratulat- 
ing somebody because wages are high, 
industry universal, and employment 
plenty, please wire me at once at my 
expense. [Laughter and applause on 
the Republican side.] 

From a Dime's Worth of Liver on Credit 
to a Dollar's Worth of Porterhouse for 
Cash. 

I refer to certain things that have 
come directly under my observation. 
You say that wages are low and that 
employra^nt is scarce. These condi- 



60 



CUSHMAN. 



tions now are far better than when 
your party was in power. I recall 
now one little incident that to my mind 
illustrates the difference between the 
conditions that exist now and the con- 
ditions that existed in the days of 
1894-95. Within three blocks of my 
cottage there is a little meat market. 
My friend Geiger, who keeps that meat 
market, charges good high prices for 
his meat, too, but I never object, be- 
cause I like to see people get good 
prices for what they sell. [Laughter.] 
I occasionally drop in there to buy a 
bit of meat. I dropped in there one 
Saturday night, and a laboring man 
came in and said to the butcher, "Cut 
me off a couple of slices of that por- 
terhouse, medium thick, and take the 
change out of that," and he threw 
down a $10 gold piece. I saw that 
same man go into a meat market in 
that same town in 1895 and ask for a 
dime's Avorth of liver on credit. [Ap- 
plause and laughter.] You can talk all 
you want to about the conditions that 
have existed under your party and 
mine. I tell you that the laboring 
man of this Nation has traveled a 
mighty distance since the Democratic 
party was last in power. He has trav- 
eled all the way from a dime's worth 
of liver on credit to a dollar's worth of 
porterhouse for cash — and that repre- 
sents a mighty and an unmeasured 
distance on the chart of domestic 
economy and national prosperity! 
[Loud applause on the Republican 
side.] 

The American Farmer and the Tariff. 

Mr. Chairman, a good many things 
have been said about the farmers' 
prosperity in this Nation, and it has 
many times been stated that a Pro- 
tective Tariff does not help the farmer. 
That I deny, and if my observation 
and my experience goes for anything 
I can prove it. 

In the first place what does the 
farmer do? He raises crops. What 
for? To sell. To sell to whom? Not 
to sell to other farmers, because they 
are engaged in the same kind of in- 
dustry; they are his competitors and 
not his customers. The farmer raises 
products to sell to other people en- 
gaged in different kinds of industries. 
His customers are the clerks in the 
stores: the laborers on the railroads; 



the laborers in the factories; the 
workmen in the mine, and the men 
who work in the sawmills, and all 
other men in the Nation who do not 
raise products. 

Therefore the price of the farmers' 
products are high when all these men 
are at work and are on a pay roll, be- 
cavise they are then buying the farm- 
er's products. A laborer may be just 
as hungry when he is "broke" as when 
he has money, but his custom lack.s 
profit. The laborer must have money 
or he can not buy. He must have 
work or he hasn't got mone3^ 

Now, then, it has been by reason of 
the fact that our factories have been 
running, that the mills have been run- 
ning, that our mines have been run- 
ning, that all our men are employed, 
that wages are high, that employment 
is plenty, that industry is universal — 
these are the things that have made 
the prices of the farmers' products 
high. 

What l\/lal<es Eggs 50 Cents a Dozen. 

That is what makes eggs in mj' town 
worth 50 cents a dozen. That is what 
makes butter worth 45 cents a povind. 
That is what makes a spring chicken 
no bigger than your fist and mostly 
neck and pin-feathers worth 65 cents. 
[Laughter,] That is what makes 
strawberries v.^orth 20 cents a box — 
and the bottom of the box is a good 
deal nearer to the top than it is close 
to the bottom. [Laughter.] That is 
what makes Uncle Tom's old brood 
mare, 16 years old and blind as a bat, 
worth $100 in gold. I have been buy- 
ing some of the farmer's products in 
the past few years and I know the 
prices that I have quoted, because I 
have paid them; but I am not com- 
plaining, because I like to see people 
get well paid for what they produce. 
[Laughter.] 

I also had some knowledge and 
some ex]:>erience with the price of the 
farmer's products in the State of Wash- 
ii-ugton in 1894 and 1895. You could 
buy horses in that State then, good 
sound horses, that weighed 900 pounds 
for $15 per head. You can absolutely 
sell a fat hog to-day in my State for 
more than a small horse would bring 
in those days. Kggs were then worth 
about 8 cents a dozen. I saw straw- 
berries offered for sale in those days? 



CUSHMAN. 



Gl 



on the streets of Tacoina 9 boxes for 
25 cents, but miglity few people were 
eating sti'awberries in those daj's at 
any price. 

Oh, there does not anybody need to 
sit up nights worrying about the con- 
dition of the American farmer these 
days. He is laying away the gold coin 
with every revolution of the sun, and 
at the same time the price of his farm 
land is soaring into the sky vintil an 
acre of good farm land is worth more 
than a city lot. [Applause.] 

When We Had Cheap Lumber and Other 
Things. 

My friend from Missouri [Mr. Clark] 
lias been talking on this floor about 
cheap things. He wants the price 
of lumber to be cheap so the laboring 
man and the farmer can build homes. 
Well, we had cheap lumber in this Na- 
tion in the years of 1894 and 1895— 
the cheapest lumber that was ever 
known in recent years. Did people 
build homes in those days? Oh, no; 
they not only did not build new homes, 
but most of them lost the homes that 
they had already built. [Laughter and 
applause on the Republican side.] 



Do you think that it is an ideal con- 
dition when things are cheap? 

Horses were never so cheap in the 
world before as they were then — but 
everybody went on foot. [Laughter.] 

Food was never so cheap as it was 
then — but everybody was hungry. 
Clothes were never so cheap — but the 
wliole human landscape was patched 
and ragged. And the Free-Trade 
party was never so cheap as it was 
then — because nobody wanted it at any 
price. [Laughter and applause on the 
Republican side.] 

I tell you that high wages is a sign 
of good times. It is the wage scale, 
and not the price list that is the 
barometer of a nation's prosperity. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 

Mow Values of Farm Products Have In- 
creased. 

Now, if the values of farm products 
and farm lands have increased about 
as much as lumber has increased in 
the same time, then it is manifest that 
the farmer has no just complaint. 

I desire at this time to exhibit an- 
other chart, which is as follows: 



Values of farm produce and stock at the farm. 
[Yearbook, Agricultural Department, 1907.] 



1900. 1902. 1904. 

Wheat $0,619 $0.63 $0,924 

Corn 3.57 .403 .441 

Oats 2cS .307 .313 

Hay 8.89 9.06 8.72 

Horses 44 61 58.61 67.93 

Mules 53.55 67.61 78.88 

Hogs 5.00 7.03 6.15 

Sheep 2.93 2.65 2.59 

Potatoes 431 .471 .453 

Cotton 0724 .0828 .0873 

Farm- values: Real estate and buildings. 

Groups of States. Year 1900. 

North Atlantic $283,424,743 

South Atlantic 178,598,124 

North Central 842,762,447 

South Central 294,663,111 

Western 113,647,881 







Increase 






since 


1906. 


1907. 


1890, 
Per cent. 


.T^'^67 


$0,874 


41.1 


.399 


.516 


44.5 


.317 


.443 


71.6 


10.37 


11.68 


31.3 


80.72 


93.51 


109.4 


98.31 


112.16 


109.2 


6.18 


7.62 


52.4 


3.54 


3.84 


31 


.511 


.717 


43.1 


.1008 


.104 


43.6 




Per cent 


Year 1905. increase in 




five years. 






Per cent. 


$321,6 


59,562 


13.4 


242,884,169 


35.9 


1,140,405.566 


35.3 


414,721,646 


40.7 


158,198,563 


89.2 



Now, then, I ask any man to look 
these two charts in the face and then 
say whether the price of lumber has 
risen unfairly and out of proportion to 
other products In the United States — 
including the products of the farm. 
And I also call attention before I leave 



this chart to the fact that not only the 
price of farm products has risen, but 
the price of farm land has risen as 
well. This chart shows the advance 
in the price of farm products during 
seven years, but it only shows the ad- 
vance in the price of farm land in fiv§ 



,>2 CU5S11MAN. 

years. That is because the Agrlcul- fore the days when Lot tended the 

tural Department only take the farm flocks of Abraham on the plains of 

values once in five years — and the next Canaan. 

date will therefore be in the year 1910. Corn, Protected by a Tariff of 15 

cents per bushel. The raising- of corn 

Some "Infant /ndustries" Other Than j^ ^ot an "infant industry." People 

Manufacturing. have been raising corn ever since Jo- 

The gentleman attempted to justify s.^Ph went down into Egypt and cor- 

his inconsistent position by saying that "^red the corn crop in the days when 

Protection was well enough when af- there was no Sherman antitrust law 

forded to an "infant industry," but to stay his hand or interfere with his 

that the lumber business had grown enterprise. [Laughter and applause.] 

beyond the stage of infancy. I won- ^^' CLARK, of Missouri. That was 

der if the gentleman is willing to ap- '^^r*-..Tli2i'A^xT^'*-L 

ply his own logic to his own Indus- ^r. CUSHMAN. They called, it corn, 

tries. I find on the Protective Tariff ^r. CLARK, of Missouri. They call 

list to-day the following articles and ^t corn, -but they do not know what 

items all of which are produced in they are talking about. 

Ne^aska, and which are on the high Mr. CUSHMAN. Well, the Bible calls 

end of the Tariff list— and none of " corn. But if it was wheat instead 

these relate to an industry that is in of corn it is all the better for my 

..... argument on this bill, because wheat 

' ^[At ""thi^s point Mr. Cushman dis- ^^ Protected by a higher Tariff than 

played on the floor of the House the ^^^j^- . ^ .^ 

following chart.] Poultry. I also see there is a Tariff 

on chickens, 3 to 5 cents per poiind. 

CHART NO. 1. Now, the raising of chickens is not an 

''INFANT INDUSTRIES'' OF NEBRASKA.. infant industry. People have been 

Rate of tariff, raising chickens on this planet since 

,, , u A ^^«Qr> nn^* the cock crew after Peter had thrice 

Mules, per head $30.00 :, ■ -, ^. ^r ^ r-r , ^ -, 

Hogs, do $1.50 denied his Master. [Laughter.] 

Sheep, do." '.'..'.'....' $1.50 

Corn, per bushel ^^ ^o . f n'ic Venerable Indeed. 

Poultry, per pound $0.03 to $0.05 

Bacon, do. ••■•••••• • ^^"S^i/ Now, if the eminent gentleman from 

Cows, per cent ad valorem.. ^'yii ,t. , , r,, „. , ^^-, , . 

Wheat, per bushel $0.25 Nebraska [Mr. Kmkald] wants to 

Hay, per ton $4.00 apply the logic of infant industries to 

This chart shows a few of the pro- all the schedules of this bill, then he 

tected "infant industries" of Nebraska. and his industries are off the map be- 

[Laughter.] fore we start, because his industries 

were old — indeed they were venerable 

Industries of Long Standing. — before the world ever heard the music 

Mules. Great Lord, nobody will con- of a band saw or listened to the hum 

tend that the raising of mules is an in- of a shingle weaver. 

fant industry. [Great laughter.] Peo- Yes; I lived in Nebraska years ago. 

pie have been engaged in raising And there comes to me to-day, rising 

mules since and before Balaam rode like a beautiful phantom from those 

through Jerusalem on his historic broad and sunlit prairies, the most 

charger of ' that particular breed. touching and beautiful memory of my 

[Laughter.] ^^f^- 

Hogs, Protected by a Tariff of $1.50 In all the years that have inter- 
per head. No well-informed man will vened, when I have heard that pros- 
claim that the raising of hogs is an perity had reached the old hopie in 
"infant industry." People have been Nebraska, it filled my heart with Joy 
engaged in that industry ever since and satisfaction. I was glad to learn 
the Biblical swine ran down the steep that the gentleman and his people 
place into the sea. ^'^^e all prosperous. 

Sheep, Protected by a Tariff of $1.50 I make no onslaught on his State or 

per head. The raising of sheep is not her industries, and it ill becomes him 

an "infant industry." Men have been to make this onslaught upon lumber, 

engaged in raising sheep since and be- the chie^ industry of my State, 



n SUM AX, 



on 



What the Sawmill Man Sells to the 
Farmer; What the Farmer Sells to the 
Sawmill Man. 

Now, then, I have another chart 
here that I have entitled: "Tariff pic- 
ture of the sawmill man; what the 
sawmill man sells to the farmer; what 
the farmer sells to the sawmill man." 



Here is a chart showing almost 
every known product of the American 
farmer Protected by a Tariff as high 
as the pyramids; the farmer's prices 
for his products have soared into the 
sky; he is willing and anxious that 
the Tariff should be continued on his 
own products — but he thinks that lum- 
ber ought to be on the free list. 



What sawmill man sells to the farmer : 

Lumber On the free list. 

What farmer sells to sawmill man : Payne hill tariff. 

Horses and mules $30 per head. 

Cattle 271/2 per cent. 

Hogs $1.50 per head. 

Fresh beef 1 1^ cents per pound. 

Bacon and hams . 4 cents per pound. 

Poultry 3 to 5 cents per pound. 

Flour 25 per cent. 

Wheat 25 cents per bushel. 

Corn 15 cents per bushel. 

Oats 15 cents per bushel. 

Hay $4 per ton. 

Potatoes 25 cents per bushel. 

Butter 6 cents per pound. 

Eggs 5 cents per dozen. 

Onions 40 cents per bushel. 

Apples 25 cents per bushel. 

Cheese . . . . 6 cents per pound. 

Honey 20 cents per gallon. 

Wool 3 to 36 cents per pound. 

Cabbages 2 cents each. 



Every product mentioned in this list 
is a product which the sawmill men 
of my State buy from the farmers, and 
they buy large quantities, too. 

And so far as I have observed the 
sawmill men always pay cheerfully 
for what they buy, too. They expect 
to get a decent price for their lum- 
ber, and thej^ are always willing to 
paj' everybody else a decent price for 
his product. 

Shows Only One Side of the Picture. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Mr. Chairman, 
does the gentleman seriously contend 
that those Tariff schedules on the nat- 
ural and inevitable products of Ne- 
braska are of any benefit to the people 
of Nebraska or any compensation to 
them whatever for the enormous bur- 
den thej' bear by reason of the great 
Tariff on coal and lumber and on the 
products which they must buy from 
eastern factories? 

Mr. CUSHMAN. I do; and I will ask 
you if the Tariff did not benefit the 
Nebraska people and their products, 
what price did they get for those prod- 
ucts when you and your Democratic 



party were last in power? [Applause 
on the Republican side.] Did they get 
the same prices they are getting now? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I want to tell the 
gentleman that we need no Protec- 
tion, and we are selling those products 
in competition with all the world to- 
day, in all parts of the world, without 
the Protection of any Tariff. The 
prices we get are based on the prices 
in the countries to which v.^e export 
our surplus, as you verj^ well know. 
[Applause on the Democratic side.] 

Mr. CUSHMAN. Let me say to the 
gentleman that he only shows one side 
of the picture. When industry is uni- 
versal in the United States our work- 
ing people have money to buy, and 
then we consume at home the largest 
portion of what is produced at home. 
But when labor is out of work and has 
no money to buy, that forces abroad 
an ever increasirg part of your prod- 
ucts, and that brings down the price. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 
The gentleman talks about the market 
of the world like we did not have any- 
thing to do with it. The biggest fac- 
tor on earth in controlling the market 



(U 



CUSHMAX. McKINLAY. 



of the world is either prosperity or 
poverty in Anierica. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I want to say in 
reply to the gentleman that the ques- 
tion is not whether we can get prices 
for our Western products, but whether 
enoug'h Western products can be raised 
to feed the world. 

How Was it in i893-'97? 

Mr. CUSHMAN. How did it come, 
then, tliat the people of this nation, 
when you and j'our party were in 
power, rose up and kicked you out be- 
cause they did not like the way your 
policies aifected the Nation? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I reply to the 
gentleman that the Tariff on hogs and 
corn and wheat has nothing to do with 
the case. It is like the flowers that 
bloom in the spring. 

Mr. CUSHMAN. That may be your 
judgment; it is not mine. 

"Poliiical Death Has No Terrors for Me 
When It Looms Athwart the Path of 
Duty." 

He who has the faith to march to 
political death for an immortal prin- 
ciple is sustained and soothed by an 
approving conscience, and he sees in 
the sun as it goes down the blessed 
reflection of a coming dawn that shall 
be the signal of his political resurrec- 
tion. [Applause.] But the political in- 
fidel who has no economic convictions, 
save the changing murmur of the mul- 
titude, when political death overtakes 
him his miserable image pas.«?es for- 
ever into the changeless night, vin- 
comforted by the companion.ship of 
heroic recollections or the blessed hope 
of a future day. 

Sir, in the political life of America 
those who have eternally chased shift- 
ing public opinion at the sacrifice of 
principle are not those who have 
eventually planted their feet upon the 
serene and lofty summit. The men 
who are willing to accept defeat for 
principle rather than to capitulate for 
the spoils of office are the men whose 
treasured memories to-day constitute 
the noblest heritage of this Republic. 

The Exampte of William McKinlcy. 

Such a man was William McKinley. 
[Applause.] Let me remind you, my 
countrymen, that William McKinlfy 



once in his lifetime stood exactly in 
the same position that the Republican 
party stands to-day. He was framing 
the McKinley Tariff bill. The political 
enemy was filling the air with wild de- 
nunciations of that bill and its author. 
The public was wavering in its belief. 
Some political dodgers and primers in 
his own party were deserting the ship. 
But there stood McKinley, with princi- 
ple in his hand and courage in his 
heart, and all the world, sir, can not 
.stand against that combination. [Ap- 
plause.] And was McKinley defeated? 
Ah! j^es. His political ship went down, 
but the last thing that greeted the 
gaze of his countrymen before the 
wanton political waves rolled over that 
frail craft was McKinley standing on 
the deck with the flag of Protection 
held aloft in his hand. That flag was 
the last thing to go down — and there- 
fore it was the first thing to come up! 
[Applause.] And, sir, when that flag 
and that matchless standard bearer 
came once more into view, the loyal 
and loving hands of his countrymen 
placed on his brave brow a wreath 
v\^oven from the fairest garlands ever 
garnered in a republic. [Loud and 
continued applause.] 



Danger to be Apprehended from 
Cheap Labor Competition in the 
Orient. 

From tlie Congressional Record of April i, 
1909. 

DUNCAN E. McKINLAY, of Cali- 
fornia. Since the last Tariff bill — the 
Dingley bill — was framed and passed 
new elements of competition have de- 
veloped, and those elements are now 
rapidly becoming a controlling factor 
in the cost of production throughout 
the world. I allude to the fact that 
the great oriental countries, which 
throughout the history of the world, 
up to a few years ago, have been con- 
sidered consuming countries from the 
standpoint of manufactures, are now 
becoming themselves, at a tremendous- 
ly rapid pace, manufacturers, pro- 
ducers, exporters, and competitors, not 
only for their own consumption, but 
for the markets of the world, which 
markets include the American market, 
as well as the European. 

The United States has been able 
since the universal use of machinery 



McKINLAY. 



65 



in manufactories has come into ploy 
to successfully compete with Europe. 
We have been able to do this and still 
pay double and treble the wages Eu- 
rope has paid, and in some instances 
produce the article cheaper than it 
could be produced in any European 
country. We have been able to do 
this; first, becaxise we have had the 
raw material at our doors, and, again, 
our country has developed very rap- 
idly in the accumulation of wealth 
with which to capitalize every form of 
industry; but principally our universal 
system of education has developed 
keener intelligence in our working 
classes, and the inventive genius of 
the American mechanic, sharpened and 
stimulated bj^ education, has invented 
machinery of highest efficiency and of 
the ■ greatest labor-saving capacltj'. 
And supplementing these agencies, our 
enterprising business men and cap- 
tains of industry have had the intelli- 
gence and the nerve to enable them 
to discard obsolete machinery and con- 
.'^tantly re-equip their industrial plants 
with the latest labor-saving devices, 
and thus through the efficiency of 
abundant capital, labor-saving machin- 
ery, inventive genius, and the natural 
Intelligence of our American mechanics, 
we have been able to overcome the 
great differences in wages prevailing 
in Europe as against the United States. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 

Europe, on the other hand, has been 
slow to change her methods of manu- 
facture and production. As a rule, 
they have clung to obsolete machinery 
and to old-fashioned business methods, 
and consequently we have been able 
as a manufacturing nation to hold our 
home markets against European com- 
petitors and also a many cases, par- 
ticularly within the last ten years, 
successfully compete in other countries 
for a share of foreign business. If 
these conditions should continue and 
no new elements of competition enter 
into the equation, I believe we might, 
with safety, concede a great deal to 
our Democratic friends as to the ad- 
visability of enacting a Tariff-for-rev- 
enue-only measure. 

>l N6w Industrial Rivalry. 

But the conditions I have Indicated 
will not continue; they are at end al- 
ready. The competition of Europe 
need no longer be feared by the United 



States: a new industrial rivalry Is 
forcing itself into the arena of the 
world's affairs. And that rivalry is of 
the Orient. World-wide movements of 
trade and commerce and of interna- 
tional agreement and disagreement have 
resulted in opening the Orient to the 
free play of all the influences and 
agencies of twentieth-century civili- 
zation and progress; and now we find 
in the countries surrounding the Pa- 
cific Ocean competitors in production 
and manufacture, as well as consumers 
of the products which we are anxious 
to dispose of in order to maintain in 
continued operation our home indus- 
tries. 

There are 800,000,000 of people in the 
lands bordering the Pacific Ocean, not 
considering the United States, and of 
these 800,000,000 of people, two-thirds 
at least are laborers. In China there 
are 432,000,000 of people, according to 
the latest report. Three millions of 
these belong to the well-to-do class, 
and the balance are workers. In Ja- 
pan there are 50,000,000 of people, not 
counting the inhabitants of Formosa, 
which island contains 3,000,000 more. 
And of this great total of the In- 
habitants of Japan, 46,000,000 depend 
on labor. In India there are 200,000,- 
000, and scattered through the islands 
of the sea and South America there are 
peoples who will make up the sum 
total of 800,000,000. 

There Never Was u Time When the Prin- 
ciple of Protection Should Be More 
Carefully Guarded. 

Now, the point I wish to make is 
this: When these hundreds of millions 
of the peoples of China, Japan, Korea, 
and India begin to use up-to-date ma- 
chinery under the management of skill- 
ful men, imported from every indus- 
trial center of the world, assisted by 
capital furnished at the lowest possible 
rates of interest by the government 
itself, begin to manufacture cotton 
goods, woolen goods, steel and iron 
products,^ wooden products of a hun- 
dred different kinds, leather goods, 
and numerous other varieties of man- 
ufactures, will we sell our manufac-' 
tures in their country or will they sell 
the products of their mills and factor- 
ies in ours? I contend, Mr. Chairman, 
that a careful study of the conditions 
wliioh I have briefly indicated, which 



66 



McKINLAY. BATES. 



are rapidly developing in the countries 
bordering- on the Pacific, will demon- 
strate that there never was a time in 
the history of the United States when 
the principle of Protection should be 
more carefully guarded than in the 
present hour. [Applause.] 



Abraham Lincoln Said: "The Tariff 
is a Question of National House- 
keeping. It is to the Government 
What Replenishing the Meal Tub 
is to the Family." 

From the Congressional Record of April i, 
1909. 

ARTHUR L. BATES, of Pennsyl- 
vania. The Democratic party went be- 
fore the country with, in many re- 
spects, an attractive platform. 

But on the subject of the Tariff they 
differed radically from us. They de- 
clared that a reduction should be made 
in the schedules as might be necessary 
to restore the Tariff to a revenue basis, 
and on that issue went before the 
country. The Republican party on 
that subject declared that — 

"in all Tariff legislation the true prin- 
ciple of Protection is best maintained 
by the imposition of such duties as 
will equal the difference between the 
cost of production at home and 
abroad." 

On that issue the Republican party 
was indorsed at the polls by over a 
million and a half majority, the great- 
est popular majority save one ever 
given a national candidate in a con- 
tested Presidential election. 

The people, then, have passed on the 
question and have indorsed the prin- 
ciples of the proposed Tariff bill, and 
we are here to register their decree. 
This view of the Tariff question was 
also strongly and emphatically in- 
dorsed by President Roosevelt in that 
campaign, and also by our present 
President, Mr. Taft, who stood upon 
that plank of our platform and again 
and again insisted that the Republican 
doctrine of Protection must be main- 
tained. The object of this bill is to 
raise revenue, to encourage industries, 
and to equalize duties. It is intended 
to lighten burdens so far as possible 
of the people of our land— laboring 
man, farmer, and toilers of every class. 



Abraham Lincoln On the Tariff. 

When Abraham Lincoln came to 
Washington to take the oath of oflice 
in March, 18P1, he said, in Pittsburg: 

"The Tariff is a question of national 
housekeeping; it is, to the Government 
what replenishing the meal tub is to 
the famib'." 

That saying is as true to-day as 
when it fell from his lips. 

This Tariff bill, when passed, will 
be the result of compromise and will 
be the consensus of opinion of 46 
States and 4 Territories. It affects 
them all. It relates to every interest, 
it touches every citizen. It is easy to 
criticise it; it is easy to carp and find 
fault; easy from a narrow view point 
to say that it does not meet the re- 
quirements of this or that persons, lo- 
cality, or interest. 

But, Mr. Chairman, every day stu- 
dents of architecture visit the Cathe- 
dral of St. Paul and point out its seem- 
ing defects. They criticise its archi- 
tecture; they point out how this or 
that in nave or transept or in its mag- 
nificent elevation might have been 
made differently; but in spite of their 
criticisms St. Paul's Cathedral at Lon- 
don stands to-day the noblest speci- 
men of architecture in the world and 
a tribute to the genius of Sir Christo- 
pher Wren. And when it is borne in 
mind that the interests of all the States 
and Territories must be conserved in 
one document, I believe that there will 
be, on this side of the Chamber, a 
ready acquiescence, a ready yielding, 
to the greatest good for the greatest 
number in the framing and in the 
passage of this bill. 

It is a revision downward, in re- 
sponse to popular will, and in accord- 
ance with the pledges in the Repub- 
lican platform. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. 
The original doctrine or the advocates 
of Protection was to protect infant in- 
dustry. 

Mr. BATES. And is to-day. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. 
And the promise was that when they 
got strong Protection should be with- 
drawn and the people would get the 
benefit of the reduction. 

Mr. BATES. Yes; and so they do. 
But you can not hurt one industry of 
a certain class without hurting all. 
The strength of a chain is its weakest 
link. The small industries would fail 



BATES. 



67 



first and leave the large ones stronger 
than before, because home competition 
would be lessened. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. 
But they have changed their plea. 

Mr. BATES. Not at all. If the gen- 
tleman will permit, I will give an il- 
lustration: In the old days, up to 1897, 
we bought all of our tin plate, prac- 
tically, from abr®ad, and paid a Tariff 
duty of 1 cent per pound. This duty 
was not enough to induce capital or 
labor to go into the business in this 
country; not at the rates we pay labor 
here. 

Major McKinley Said: "We Will Build an 
Industry in This Country." 

They said, "You can not do it." He 
said, "No; I can not do it with a Tariff 
of 1 cent a pound, but if you will give 
me adequate Protection it can be done." 
What resulted? They gave him in the 
McKinley bill a Protection of 2.2 cents 
per pound, and the tin mills started. 

A campaign of abuse, of misrepre- 
sentation, and vituperation ensued, and 
Major McKinley was defeated at the 
polls for Congress in Ohio because 
those who opposed him hired peddlers 
to go through his district charging 
more for dippers and pails and to say 
that they charged the extra price be- 
cause of the Protective Tariff of the 
^McKinley bill. Now, did they pay 
more on account of that? Why, at first, 
when the deception was on, they did, 
but afterwards the price of tin came 
down lower than before. It became an 
industry in this country that employs 
17,000 people and pays out in wages 
$10,000,000 in cash annually, and has 
saved to the American people in the 
last ten years in the decreased price 
of the article $35,000,000. The Tariff 
was reduced by the Dingley bill from 
2.2 cents to 1.5 cents, and it is pro- 
posed in this bill to reduce it still more 
to 1.2 cents. There is a concrete ex- 
ample of building an industry in this 
country until it should become strong 
and have a market here, and now the 
Tariff has been reduced and the cost 
of the article has been reduced and 
we are buying tinware cheaper than 
we have ever bought it in this country 
before we transferred the industry 
from that side of the Atlantic to this. 
It is all, however, a question of wages 
for labor, It the Tariff \xs^,(^ heen 



taken off. we would either reduce the 
wage scale or close the mills. 

Selling Cheaper for Export. 

Mr. COX, of Indiana. Does the gen- 
tleman mean to say that we should 
have bargain days and give the for- 
eigner the benefit of those bargain 
days; does the gentleman mean that? 

Mr. BATES. For the same reason 
that every country on the globe prac- 
tices the same thing. England has an 
export price less than its home price. 

Mr. COX, of Indiana. That may be 
true, but two wrongs do not make a 
right. 

Mr. BATES. It is the common prac- 
tice in all nations. England, under a 
revenue Tariff, does the same thing, so 
it clearly can not be charged to a 
Protective Tariff; and so does every 
other country; so does every industry. 
A commission examined into this mat- 
ter most carefully only a few years 
ago. Take, for instance, the example 
of a mower and reaper company in 
Ohio. At the end of the season they 
may have 10,000- machines on hand of 
that year's pattern. One of two things 
must happen. They must either save 
those over for the next spring opening 
and close the mills, or else tlxey must 
dispose of those machines somewhere 
on the market and the mill go on and 
manufacture the new pattern for the ' 
next spring. The cost of distribution 
in this country is very much higher 
than abroad — salaries of general agen- 
cies, salaries of selling agents; then 
there is a certain loss on notes and 
collections; also salaries of middlemen. 
Suppose they sell the whole lot abroad 
in one consignment and save the cost 
of distribution? Why, it would be act- 
ing the part of wisdom to sell them at 
cost, or 90 per cent of cost, and clean 
them out to get the money back and 
turn it into next spring's manufacture 
of the new pattern. [Applause on the 
Republican side.] 

Cost of Living Here and Abroad. 

It is gin error to assert that the cost 
of living is so much greater here than 
over there, if they live as well as we 
do. More than half the supplies of 
the United Kingdom are bought abroad, 
and mostly from the United States. In 
the city of Glasgow are 80,000 families 
living, each family in a jingle room, 



68 



BATES. 



It is no wonder that advanced Eng- 
lish thought of a Balfour or a Cham- 
berlain says: 

"It Is not well with our English 
trade. The most advanced of our com- 
mercial rivals are not only Protection- 
ists, but are going to remain so." 

Joseph Chamberlain, in a signed 
statement in the London Telegraph, 



"After a long period of success, the 
policy of unrestricted imports has now 
shown sign of failure. Our supremacy 
has been wrested from us. One by one, 
markets once profitable and expanding 
are closed to us by hostile Tariffs. We 
have lost the power of bargaining for 
the removal of these barriers to our 
trade." 

A gentleman on the other side was 
concerned the other day about the 
wool question and keeping the poor 
people warm and trying to keep off 
the dread tuberculosis. I received a 
circular pointing out the necessity of 
a reduction of the duty on manufac- 
tures of woolens and especially on car- 
pets. Great heavens! Mr. Chairman, 
in what other country on the face of 
the globe does, the laboring man have 
any carpets, or any parlor floor on 
which to put them, if he had carpets? 
Or in what other land on the face of 
the globe does the workingman have 
a Sunday coat, as pleaded for by the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, 
as well as a day coat, or any of the 
luxuries of life that are enjoyed by the 
great warp and woof of the people of 
the United States? 

The radical difference on this subject 
between the two parties is, and has 
been, almost from the foundation of 
the Republic, that the Democratic 
party is concerned for the welfare of 
the "consumer," and the Republican 
party is concerned for the welfare of 
the producer, bearing in mind that 
every man is first a producer before 
he can be a consumer, and bearing in 
mind, also, that every man is a pro- 
ducer. Every worthy citizen is a 
producer, and sells his labor or the 
product of labor before he can be 
a consumer. On these two theories 
the parties for a hundred years have 
contested almost every election as to 
which should gain the ascendency on 
the two sides of that proposition. The 
Republican party believes In looking 
to the Welfare of the purchasing pow- 
er of our people, to their ability to 
produce and purchase. 



I will read four or five lines from 
an editorial in the Washington Post 
the other morning as to this question: 

"But how about the American work- 
ingman who may suffer a cut in wages 
in order to enable Europeans to enter 
this market? The Protective principle 
should stand unimpaired, and it should 
not be based upon the nonsense that 
only 'infant industries' should be Pro- 
tected. American industry, whether an 
infant or a giant, should receive the 
first consideration of Congress. Let 
the foreign industries and workmen 
wait until our own people are cared 
for. No foreign government sacrifices 
its own interests to those of the United 
States, but, on the contrary, many of 
them discriminate against this country. 
They have a right to do so, and it is 
the right of the United States to take 
a position where it can retaliate if 
necessary." 

Fallacy of Cheap Goods. 

And now I desire to say a word on 
the fallacj' of cheap goods: The idea 
that we might sell everything for a 
good price and buy everything cheap 
is most fascinating. What does it 
mean to buy in the cheapest market? 
It simply means that the American 
people are to buy their glass, earthen, 
and china ware, cottons, woolens, silks, 
linens, tools, machinery, hardware, cut- 
lery, iron, steel, and, in fact, every 
manufactured article in Europe; that 
they shall cease entirelj^ buying of 
home producers unless our manufac- 
turers will sell these articles cheaper 
than they can be purchased from any 
other people of the earth. 

It means that we will buy our food 
and farm products in Canada, the Ar- 
gentine Republic, or wherever they can 
be bought at the lowest prices. It 
means that the purchasers of other 
countries shall buy where they can get 
goods the cheapest; hence the pur- 
chasers of the world would not come 
to the United States to buy their manu- 
factured goods or farm products un- 
less they can buy them cheaper here 
than in any other country. Instead, 
then, of selling there, Ave would be re- 
duced to the necessity of selling cheap 
or not at all, excepting, of course, as 
we might produce a superior article or 
something that can not be obtained 
elsewhere. We could only become sell- 
ers by selling for a lower price than 
any one else. 

It means that tlie cost of production 
below the rest of the world must nec- 
essarily follow. It means tlio JnVO- 



BATES. 



king of the law of the "survival of the 
fittest." It means that those indus- 
tries that could not stand the struggle 
should perish. It means that capital, 
if there" is any left from the ruin that 
would be wrought, must seek other 
investment or go into hiding and be 
unprofitable. It means that laborers 
thrown out of work must find employ- 
ment in some other industries, but it 
means also that the other industries 
must always be those in which the 
commodities can be produced cheaper 
tlian elsewhere. It means that to en- 
able us to sell in the best markets we 
must undersell all competitors. There 
would thus ensue an entire revolution 
in the methods and conduct of business 
here, and leveling down through every 
channel to the very lowest line of our 
competitors. Our habits of life would 
have to change; our wages cut down 
50 per cent or more; our homes ex- 
changed for hovels. This is what 
would necessarily flow in the wake of 
Free or Freer Trade. All goods would 
be cheap, but how costly when meas- 
ured by the degradation that would 
ensue. 

When Goods Are Cheapest Men Are 
Cheapest. 

It is a principle as old as the hills 
and everlasting as the unchanging law 
that when goods are cheapest men are 
poorest; and the most distressing ex- 
periences in this country or in all hu- 
man history have been when every- 
thing was lowest and cheapest when 
measured in money, but highest and 
dearest when measured by labor. The 
best unit of value is what a day's la- 
bor will produce. It seems to me we 
have had full experience of cheap 
times in this country. Goods were 
cheap in this country from 1855 to 
1860; yet the farmer could hardly raise 
enough mones' to pay his taxes. 

President Buchanan in 1857. 

The wail of President Buchanan, in 
his message to Congress in 1857, states 
the case. He said: 

"With unsurpassed plenty in all the 
production and all the elements of nat- 
ural wealth, our manufacturers have 
suspended; our public works are retard- 
ed, our private enterprises of different 
kinds abandoned, and thousands of use- 
ful laborers are thrown out of employ- 
ment and reduced to want. We have 
possessed all the* elements of material 



wealth in rich abundance, and yet, not- 
withstanding all these advantages, our 
country, in its monetary interests, is 
in a deplorable condition." 

Such a condition of affairs continued 
until the Morrill Protection law of 
1861 was enacted. When again the 
Democracy was intrusted with power, 
in 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895, and struck 
down Protective Tariff laws, we had 
cheap goods again in this country. We 
had 3,000,000 laboring people out of 
employment, and had hunger and deso- 
lation everywhere all over this land. 

President Cleveland in 1893. 

How like the words of his Demo- 
cratic predecessor were the words of 
President Cleveland in his annual mes- 
sage to Congress in 1893, after a Free- 
Trade administration had been voted 
in. He said: 

"With plenteous crops, with abundant 
promise of remunerative production 
and manufacture, with unusual invita- 
tion to safe investment, and with satis- 
factory assurance of business enter- 
prise, suddenly financial fear and dis- 
trust have sprung up on every side, nu- 
merous moneyed institutions have sus- 
pended, surviving corporations and In- 
dividuals are content to keep in hand 
all money they are usually anxious to 
loan. Loss and failure have involved 
every branch of business." 

This was a little over a year after 
the people had elected an entire ad- 
ministration pledged to what the world 
knows as "Free-Trade." 

We have in this country a higher 
order of civilization than elsewhere. 
If then, the consumers of the United 
States pay more for the necessaries 
and comforts of life than they would 
under a low-wage scale, they are sim- 
ply contributing to the maintenance 
of that civilization, intelligence, com- 
fort, happiness which makes the people 
of this country conspicuous among the 
nations of the world. Whether we 
pay more for the necessities of life 
than those in other countries or work 
for a lower wage is wholly immaterial. 
That is not the question. The real 
question is. Does it pay them to do it? 

Protection Encouragement. 

Tariff laws encourage men with 
money to open mines, build, factories, 
establish Industries, which could not 
exist were it not for the Tariff laws, 
which ,'?hield them from foreign com- 
petition. This creates a demand for 
labor. A Protective Tariff, then, be- 



70 



BATES. 



comes a Protection to opportunity. If 
the people are given opportunity for 
employment, they will 'fix their own 
wage rate. If these opportunities are 
destroyed, it is impossible to satisfy 
them. The wants of men are satisfied 
through the efforts of labor. The main 
arguments on the other side of this 
House seem to be based upon the nar- 
row demands of man as an individual, 
with no reference whatever to his re- 
lation to society. It is the doctrine 
of individualism — the cold, cruel doc- 
trine of the survival of the fittest. 
It is the doctrine of Richard Cobden, 
of John Stuart Mill, of David Richardo, 
and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Clark]. 

Free-Trade Means Wage Reduction. 

John Bright conceded a vital point 
In the controversy in 1886 when he 
admitted that the one way by which 
free competition can be met and. home 
factories preserved is by a reduction 
of wages. This, then, is the onlj' alter- 
native. Reduce the Tariff on compet- 
ing products, admit freer importations, 
and then only by reducing wages and 
degrading labor are our industries to 
be defended and carried on. The 
American market is worth more than 
twice as much to us as all the foreign 
markets combined, even if we could 
possess those foreign markets exclus- 
ively. What would it profit us to tear 
down our home market and gain the 
whole world of markets? 

The Tariff bill that would enable 
foreign goods to compete freely with 
our own products ought to be labeled 
"A bill to promote the welfare of the 
people of Leeds, Bristol, and other cit- 
ies of England and the Continent at 
the expense of the laboring people of 
the United States." 

When did we ever lower the duties 
in this country that hard times and a 
depleted Treasury and gold flowing 
out of the country did not ensue? 
When were the higher duties ever re- 
stored that general prosperity did not 
follow? When did the Democratic 
party ever assume power that they did 
not at once make an assault upon the 
Protective features of the Tariff laws? 
If there is one thing that the school 
of Bryan, and the school of Cleveland, 
and, in fact, all the schools of modern 
Deuiocracy do agree upon, it is to as- 



sail the Protective features of the Tar- 
iff laws of this country, whenever pos- 
sible. 

But it Did Destroy Industry. 
I quote as high Democratic authority 
as the late Senator Gorman when I 
state that "the last and only complete 
Democratic victory gained in recent 
years was won because the candidate 
stated, 'We will not destroy any in- 
dustry.' " And on that declaration the 
campaign of 1892 was waged in the 
East and Middle West rather than 
upon the dangerously worded Chicago 
platform in which Protective Tariff 
was assailed as unconstitutional, and 
which platform was soon evoked, and, 
as far as possible, formulated into or- 
ganic law. Were industries destroyed? 
Ninety-two articles were transferred 
from the dutiable to the free list by 
the Wilson bill as it came from the 
Democratic Ways and Means Commit- 
tee, or as it passed the House, among 
thein wool, sugar, coal, iron, and lum- 
ber. The farmers were stripped of 
the Protection afforded in the McKin- 
ley law; railroads went into the hands 
of receivers; banks closed their doors; 
the smoke of industry ceased to cloud 
the sky; 3,000.000 laboring people were 
thrown out of emploj^ment; gold left 
our shores with every ship; the looms 
and reels and spindles of Bradford 
and other cities of England and the 
Continent worked double forces night 
and day to supply our people with tex- 
tile fabrics, while the workingrnen of 
America languished, were being fed at 
soup houses, and begging for bread. 

Tfie Greatest Mar/cet in the World. 

We hear a great deal about the ne- 
cessity for foreign trade, the desira- 
bility of conquering foreign markets, 
and I would not belittle that necessity 
nor deny that desirability; but let us 
never forget that the greatest market 
in the world, the most desirable, that 
most essential to our well-being and 
advance and to our independence, is 
the great, uncqualed American home 
market. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] And let us not forget either 
that tlic policy which has furnished 
to us and preserved that market is 
tlie policy that plants the factory be- 
side the farm; the policy that protects 
every home industry. [Applause on 
the Republican side.]* 



KNAPP. 



71 



Our steadily increasing- foreign trade 
for the past twelve years has been 
remarkable. It is desirable that it be 
extended further to dispose of our in- 
crease in surplus products. It can be 
extended by sensible trade arrange- 
ments with other countries by keeping 
our manufacturers accurately Informed 
of trade conditions of the world, the 
state of foreign markets, by fostering 
and upbuilding an American merchant 
marine, by finishing the Isthmian Ca- 
nal; but we must not endeavor to 
build up our foreign trade by sacrifi- 
cing our home markets, because in 
seeking markets we want the best 
markets. The best markets are where 
the people can sell the most products 
at good prices and have the money 
paid for them after they have sold 
them, and that place is here In Amer- 
ica, after practically forty years of 
Protective Tariff ascendency. [Loud 
applause on the Republican side.] 



All the Progressive Nations of the 
World Sell Cheaper for Export 
Than at Home. 

From tJie Congressional Record of April I, 
1909. 

CHARLES L. KNAPP, of New York. 
The criticism is often made that some 
of our manufactured articles or prod- 
ucts are sold abroad cheaper than at 
home, or below market prices. That 
practice does not characterize solely 
the manufactured products of this 
country. There is not a progressive 
nation in the world some of the manu- 
factured articles of which are not sold 
abroad cheaper than at home. This is 
true of Germany, France, and even of 
Free-Trade England. 

The percentage of our manufactured 
articles so sold abroad cheaper than at 
liome is so small in comparison with 
the aggregate exports as to hardly de- 
serve discussion, and would not but for 
the fact that dignity has been given 
to the. transaction by persistent oppo- 
nents of the Protective system. It 
has been explained time and time 
again that this small percentage so 
sold may be surplus stock, or be goods 
that are out of date, or may be for the 



purpose of gaining a new market or 
holding a market against strong com- 
petition. But it must be remembered 
in this connection that when goods are 
so sold the American workingman and 
farmer are not the losers but the gain- 
ers. These goods have been manufac- 
tured at the same rate of wages as 
those sold at home. They have en- 
abled our factories to keep their fires 
going month after month; to keep 
their workingmen employed without 
cessation, and thus to keep the home 
market for the farmer whose products 
are necessary for the support of those 
so engaged in manufacturing indus- 
tries. 

A Pure Question of Business. 

Moreover, this system is not a ques- 
tion of Tariff but a pure question of 
business. It is practiced by Free-Trade 
countries as well as Protective Tariff 
countries; by the manufacturer whose 
product is not Protected, as well as by 
those whose product is Protected; by 
merchants who make special induce- 
ments for out-of-town people. It is a 
plain business transaction, practiced by 
nearly all engaged in any one of our 
diversified industries, and will doubt- 
less continue so long as industries are 
prosperous. 

The truth about it all is that we are 
not the only nation that suffers from 
trusts. They have existed in Free- 
Trade and Protective Tariff nations. 
They have existed under Republican 
and monarchical forms of government. 
They are not the result of political, but 
commercial conditions. The commer- 
cial w^orld at present is a world of 
combinations. Business and commer- 
cial industries are making busy the 
cities and dotting alike the hills and 
valleys. Trade and commerce are 
spanning continents and crossing seas. 
River, ocean, and railway transporta- 
tion is facilitating the interchange of 
the markets of the world and making 
nations next-door neighbors. Leading 
in all this advancement is the United 
States. We are the greatest agricul- 
tural, manufacturing, and industrial 
nation in the world, but our triumphs 
have invited our trials. We want the 
prosperity, but we do not want the 
evils of the trusts, and so the problem 
is how to retain the prosperity and 
regulate the combinations, eliminating 
the evils. 



MONDELL. 



Opposed to Free=Trade in Coal as 
Inconsistent with the Policy of 
Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of April z, 
1909. 

FRANK W. MONDELL, of Wyoming. 
I deny that reciprocity in coal would 
give New England cheaper coal on the 
average or in the long run, but if it 
should reduce the price a few cents 
per ton, it must be by having Ameri- 
can products driven from her markets 
by a foreign product. Is New England 
prepared to advocate such a policy? Is 
she prepared to profit at the expense 
of the Virginias and Montana, Wash- 
ington, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado? 

Shall a Protectionist appeal in vain 
to New England on behalf of Protec- 
tion? There she stands, rock-ribbed, 
sound, rich, prosperous, and so she will 
remain so long, and so long only, as 
the policy of Protection shall prevail 
in the land. Her countless mills and 
factories are splendid monuments to 
the genius and Industry of her people, 
but no less are they monuments to 
the Protective policy of the Republican 
party. 

Does New England desire to have it 
said of her that her adherence to the 
fiscal policy that has made her ri'ch 
has destroyed the spirit of fair play 
and of devotion to all the Union which 
made her famous? Is she willing to 
amass wealth, increase her dividends, 
and enlarge her factories at the ex- 
pense of the crippled and shattered in- 
dustries of her sister States? Do her 
Representatives hope that industries 
thus maintained and expanded can 
long endure when the policy of Protec- 
tion which has made her prosperity 
possible depends for its very existence 
upon the continued faith of the Ameri- 
can people that it is maintained in a 
spirit of equity and justice to all sec- 
tions of our common country? 

Outside of New England, with the 
exceptions I have mentioned, the wild- 
est flight of imagination can conjure 
no hope of cheaper fuel to any Ameri- 
can citizen by free coal. Think of it! 
We are surrendering a million of reve- 
nue, threatening industries with ex- 
tinction and American workingmen 
with loss of employment, and nowhere 
in all the vast area of the States will 
there be any appreciable reduction In 
the price of coal to the consumer. 



Then, tell me why any one anywhere 
should favor this proposition. I will 
tell you why some favor It. 

Should Not Forget to Be Consistent. 

Mr. GRONNA. Is it not true that 
the manufacturer now can obtain free 
wheat from Canada? 

Mr. MONDELL. Well. I do not know 
about the manufacturer, but I know 
that the gentleman stands for a duty 
on wheat, and I stand with him. 

Mr. GRONNA. I am glad of that. 

Mr. MONDELL. The fact is that If 
our brethren of Minnesota and the Da- 
kotas should forget to be consistent as 
Protectionists and seek only their own 
selfish interests, they should still stand 
unitedly against this reciprocity ar- 
rangement, because by no possibility 
can it be helpful to them in reducing 
the price of coal in their States by a 
single penny, while in the long run 
it would lead to their complete undo- 
ing. 

The Lesson of Experience. 

Mr. SLEMP. I would like the gen- 
tleman to state the effect of the Wilson 
Tari^ bill on the production in Wash- 
ington and Montana. 

Mr. MONDELL. I will be glad to do 
that, because it illustrates just what 
would happen in Boston when the lev- 
erage is given the foreign operator. 

Under the McKinley bill there was a 
duty on coal of 75 cents a ton, which 
under the Wilson bill was reduced to 
40 cents. It was, of course, better 
than no duty at all, but it was not 
high enough to afford adequate Protec- 
tion, the result being that the Cana- 
dian operators temporarily reduced 
their price just enough to secure the 
market, and then gradually raised it 
to a point as high or nigher than it 
had been before. Any attempt on the 
part of the American operators to re- 
gain the market was met by a tempo- 
rary reduction, until the American op- 
erators, realizing that the Canadian 
operators had the leverage and could 
and would use it to put them out of 
business, made no further attempt to 
secure the markets they had lost until 
after the passage of the Dlngley bill. 

Last .year the States of Washington 
and Montana mined approximately five 
and three-quarters million tons of coal. 
Add to this three and a quarter million 
tons as the estimated proportion of the 



MONDELL. AliDRICH. 



73 



Wyoming coal that went north, and 
we have 9,000,000 tons of annual coal 
production, giving employment directly 
to 20.000 to 25,000 men. besides many 
more indirectly, threatened most seri- 
ously. And all in order that some op- 
erators in Ohio and Pennsylvania, who 
are already making good profits, may 
make better profits, and in order that 
a few people in New England may in- 
dulge their fancy for what they are 
pleased to call "free raw materials." 

Mr. Chairman, more is involved in 
this question, much more, than the 
granting of the selfish demand of a 
little handful of manufacturers in New 
England, already grown rich under 
Protection, for an opportunity to at- 
tempt to sweat 2. few dollars out of 
American coal producers, serious and 
sorrowful as that spectacle is. There 
is more involved than the adding of 
millions to the profits of a few Ameri- 
can exporters of coal and of a great 
railway magnate who is said to own 
much of the Crows Nest Pass field in 
Canada. 

The real question involved is wheth- 
er the Republican party shall deliber- 
ately, and with malice aforethought, 
urge a reciprocity arrangement, which 
Canada has not sought, with the full 
knowledge that such action will seri- 
ously cripple one of the leading Indus- 
tries of three or four of the States of 
the Union. 

Viould Noi Cheapen Coal. 
This is, so far as I can recollect, the 
first time that the Republican party 
has seriously considered ignoring the 
reasonable claims of large sections of 
the country. And for what purpose? 
Not to make a necessary article cheap- 
er to the great body of the American 
people. No one outside of a lunatic 
asylum or an institution for the feeble- 
minded would seriously claim that the 
proposed legislation would have any 
.such effect. Neither is it for the pur- 
pose of increasing the trade and •com- 
merce of the country; but, if we judge 
from the evidence presented at the 
hearings on the plea of certain Penn- 
sylvania operators for a free Canadian 
field and that the Grand Trunk and 
Canadian Pacific railwaj^s ought not to 
be compelled to pay a Canadian duty 
on American coal, which they must 
have; and then there were the two 



gentlemen of Maine and Boston, who, 
having grown rich in the pulp and 
paper business under liberal Protection, 
informed the committee of their desire 
to grow richer by depriving others of 
Protection. 

We heard nothing about Canadian 
reciprocity in coal in the West In years 
past; but that was before certain 
American lines of railway were built 
into Canadian coal fields and certain 
great railway interests came to con- 
trol Canadian coal mines. 



The System of Tariff for Revenue is 
the Same Thing as Free=Trade. 

From the Congressional Record of April I, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. Mr. President, I have been in 
public life long enough to have heard 
frequently prophesies of the character 
which have just fallen from the lips of 
the Senator from Maryland. I have 
heard the Protective system destroyed 
in words at every session of every 
Congress for thirty years, but there 
never has been a time in the history 
of this country when that policy was 
so fully approved by the American 
people as It Is at this moment. 

The Senator from Maryland, If he 
had the disposition, as I am sure he 
has the ability, to construct a Tariff 
bill along the lines of his own theories, 
could not get ten votes on his side of 
the Chamber for his proposition. This 
great American policy is so strong in 
every section of the country, from one 
end to the other, from Maine to Texas, 
that it can not be overthrown by dec- 
lamation. The hearts and the interests 
of the American people are wedded to 
the wise policy of Protection. 

Years ago there were Senators of 
great ability sitting upon the other 
side of the Chamber who believed in 
the policy o? Free-Trade or a Tariff 
for revenue only. I could recite names 
that are known In American history 
of men who believed in the policy of 
Free-Trade or a revenue Tariff. Where 
are they to-day? Who have taken 
their places in this body? The Sena- 
tor from aiaryland, possibly. But 
where is another man sitting upon 
that side of this Chamber wlio is will- 
ing to stand up and in its length and 
breadth defend the policy of Free- 



ALDRICH. 



Trade, or that of a Tariff for revenue 
only, which means the same thing. 

Mr. RAYNER. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does, 
the Senator from Rhode Island yield to 
the Senator from Maryland? 

Mr. ADDRICH. Certainly. 

Mr. RAYNER. Does the Senator say 
a Tariff for revenue is the same thing 
as Free-Trade? It is the first time I 
have heard that suggestion. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Absolutely. 

Mr. RAYNER. If you have Free- 
Trade, how^ can you have a Tariff for 
revenue? 

Disappearing Democratic Doctrine. 

Mr. ALDRICH. A Tariff for revenue 
only excludes all idea or possibility of 
Protection, as Robert J. Walker dem- 
onstrated. A Tariff made solely to 
secure the greatest amount of impor- 
tations destroys domestic production, 
and its last analysis is Free-Trade. 

Mr. RAYNER. How is it possible to 
have Free-Trade and have a Tariff 'at 
the same time? That is what I want 
to know. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not intend to 
discuss this question now. I shall be 
glad to discuss it with the Senator 
when the bill reaches the Senate. What 
I was calling attention to was that 
the doctrine of the Democratic fathers 
had disappeared and that it has no 
longer any advocates here or else- 
where. It is true you have some Sena- 
tors in favor of reducing the duties at 
other places and. on other articles than 
those which are grown or produced in 
their own States, but the Senators 
who are for Free-Trade from one end 
to the other of the Tariff bill no longer 
exist, unless I make an honorable ex- 
ception in the case of the Senator 
from Maryland. 

Protection as a Part of a Great National 
Policy. 

I can nol l)(>]iovo that tlio Protection- 
ists of Mar>-land have all disappeared, 
even in the ranks of the Democratic 
party. 

The interests of the State of Mary- 
land in the Tariff are as great, almost, 
as those of any other State in the 
Union, and I think that the progress- 
ive men of Maryland, even in the Dem- 
ocratic party, do not subscribe to the 
doctrine which the Senator from Marv- 



land seeks to revive to-day, I sug- 
gest to him that it is too late to do 
this. The American people have pro- 
nounced upon that subject by the 
greatest majority ever given to a suc- 
cessful party. Their adhesion will be 
given to this great national policy 
every time the question is submitted 
to them for consideration; and, in my 
judgment, the Senators on the other 
side of the Chamber are as fully con- 
vinced of that •as I am. The time will 
never again come, gentlemen, when the 
doctrine of the old Democratic party 
in •this respect will have the approval 
of the American people. You might 
as well make up your minds to join 
in the procession which is moving on. 
The interests of Tennessee, Georgia, 
North Carolina, Loufeiana, and some 
other States that I might mention, and 
the interests of their people are wed- 
ded to the doctrine of Protection. You 
might as well be frank enough to ad- 
mit it now and here. 

Til is Great Protective Policy Should Be 
Just to Every Section. 

I do not intend, so far as I am 
concerned — and in this I think I voice 
the views of my associates on the Fi- 
nance Committee — to let speeches 
such as that to which we have just 
listened deter me from being just to 
every interest in every Southern State. 
I am a Protectionist because I believe 
in Protection as a part of a great 
national policy, and no interest entitled 
to Protection in any State, whether 
North or South, East or West, .shall be 
injured so far as my voice or vote is 
concerned, either in committee or in 
this Chamber. I am sure that the ad- 
vocates of this great Protective policy 
intend to be just to every section of 
this country and to every interest in 
this country, and I am grateful in one 
sense to the Senator from Maryland 
for having raised the question in this 
form. 

I aiTi quite certain that he will have 
very few. if any, followers upon his 
.«ide of the Chamber in his tirade 
against Protection. The day has 
passed when the doctrines and the pol- 
icy which might have been applicable 
to the needs of this country a century 
ago can be revived and applied to mod- 
ern conditions. So, I repeat, you might 
as well accept the inevitable. It is 



McCALL. YOUNG. HUGHES. 



lO 



coming-, Senators, and why not admit 
it, and join with us in trying to legis- 
late in a way sure to redound to tlie 
benefit of the entire people of the 
United States? 



Lets in the Sunshine Upon Many ln= 
dustries Which Need It. 

From the Congressional Record of April i, 
1909. 

SAMUEL W. McCALL, of Massachu- 
setts. Whether you agree or disagree 
to the particular provisions of the bill, 
there can be no question in the mind 
of any man who has inade in any de- 
tail a study of its provisions that it 
revises the Tariff downward; that it 
makes some great and many important 
reductions from existing duties, and 
that, as a whole, if it shall become a 
law upon the essential lines upon 
which it is drawn, it will make a 
greater reduction of duties upon im- 
portant articles than any general law 
which has been enacted for a half cen- 
tury. 

I believe that the schedules of this 
bill let in the sunshine upon many in- 
dustries which need it. I believe that 
it will tend to foster the employment 
of American labor in the most profit- 
able channels; that it will save labor 
now wasted or unprofitably employed; 
that*it is against the interests of mo- 
nopoly and in favor of the great mass 
of the people; and that if it shall be 
enacted into law it will be, on the 
whole, the most comprehensive and en- 
lightened Tariff law enacted in this 
country in a half century. 



Does Not Understand That Kind of 
Republicanism. 

From the Congressional Record of April i, 
1909. 
H. OLIN YOUNG, of Michigan. And 
let me say that I do not understand 
that kind of Republicanism which de- 
mands a prohibitive duty upon barlej^ 
and hides and also free lumber and 
free iron ore. I do not understand that 
kind of Republicanism which demands 
a duty of 12 cents a pound on grease 
and dirt and 30 per cent of wool, and 
then, on "great economic principles," 
demands free lumber. For my part, I 
am willing to vote for full and ade- 



(luate protection to the wool of Ohio 
and to the rice of Louisiana. I am 
willing, if I have an opportunity, to 
vote for an adequate Tariff upon hides 
and upon coal, and I believe that there 
should be an adequate duty upon iron 
ore. 

My belief in the doctrine of Protec- 
tion is not bounded by the confines of 
my district, but extends through every 
part and portion of the United States. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] I 
am not one of those Protectionists who 
wish everj'^thing in my own district to 
be Protected and regard with indiffer- 
ence the baring of the industries of 
all other districts to unlimited compe- 
tition. Neither do I belong to that 
class of Free-Traders who loudly de- 
mand Free-Trade for the country at 
large, and a prohibitive duty "for reve- 
nue" on peanuts, lumber, rice, or what- 
ever their own districts happen to 
produce. Neither ain I wiUing that the 
industries of my own district should be 
left like the shorn lamib, defenseless 
against the storm of unlimited foreign 
competition, while other industries are 
amply protected. 

I hold in my hand a resolution 
passed by the legislature of Michigan, 
calling upon their Representatives in 
both Houses of Congress to use all 
honorable means to cause a restoration 
of the dutj'^ upon iron ore. I will not 
take the time of the House to read it, 
but I will insert it in the Record. 



The Life Blood of an Industrial Sys- 
tem. 

From the Congressional Record of April i, 
1909. 
JAMES A. HUGHES, of West Virginia. 
Our hope for future prosperity is cen- 
tered almost exclusively in this coal 
industry of the State. Fully 90 per 
cent of our people are dependent, 
directly and indirectly, upon our coal 
business. It is the coal operator that 
our merchants, wholesale and retail, 
must go to in order to find a purchaser 
for their merchandise. It is to him 
the farmer goes to sell his little sur- 
plus. Our railroads will go into re- 
ceivers' hands if our mines are crip- 
pled. A blow to the coal mines injures 
every industry in the State. When the 
mines are prosperous, all of our people 
are active and employed; when that 



76 



SLEMP. 



business is depressed every industry 
we have feels the paralysis. It is the 
lifeblood to our whole industrial sys- 
tem. No State in this Union is so de- 
pendent upon one Industry for its com- 
mercial success as West Virginia is 
dependent upon that of coal. 



The Fathers of the Republic Were 
Protectionists. 

From the Congressional Record of April I, 
1909. 
C. BASCOM SLEMP, of Virginia. As 
a Southern Republican in hearty ac- 
cord with the policies of my party, I 
desire to address myself to some prac- 
tical observations on the pending Tar- 
iff bill and the interests and issues in- 
volved in it, with special reference to 
its application to the South. 

In so doing I wish to detail at some 
length and with some particularity 
what may seem to many the surpris- 
ing industrial development which that 
section has of late attained, and to 
call attention to the radical change 
that has quietly and almost impercep- 
tibly taken place in the sentiment of 
Its people on the subject of Protection 
as a prime principle of business and 
economic policy. In that connection, I 
desire to set forth earnestly the pro- 
priety and necessity of a continuance 
of that policy, especially as to those 
Industries which are identified with 
the production of raw materials. In- 
cidentally, I wish to show by a brief 
sketch, that such a continuance will 
promote and confirm that militant sen- 
timent which is now operating in the 
South in behalf of a broad Protective 
policy, since It can not fail to quicken 
In the minds of the good people of the 
South a fuller appreciation of the his- 
toric and consistent relation which that 
policy bears to the South as a part of 
our common country, to its proudest 
memories and traditions, going back to 
the beginning of the Republic and ex- 
tending over four decades thereafter, 
when the South took the lead in our 
national councils and in the conduct 
of our national policies, with the noble 
commonwealth of Virginia in the very 
forefront of service, responsibility, and 
distinction. 

Early Southern Statesmen for Protection. 
Historically, the principle of Pro- 



tection to American industry may be 
said to have had its origin in the 
South, and the adoption of that princi- 
ple as a measure of fundamental na- 
tional policy was effected primarily 
through the instrumentality of states- 
men from the South. Beginning with 
the first Tariff law enacted by the 
First Congress at its first session, the 
initial basis for the practical conduct 
of our newly founded Government in 
the sense of a truly independent na- 
tion, in fact, approved by President 
George Washington with zeal, glad- 
ness, and alacrity — significantly so — 
on July 4, 1789, the thirteenth anni- 
versary of the paper Declaration of 
Independence, the fathers and founders 
of the Republic, both North and South, 
seem to have had no more disagree- 
ment as to the aptness and soundness 
of the principle of Protection to Ameri- 
can industry than they had as to the 
soundness of fhe principle of self- 
preservation. 

The Members of that First Congress, 
in House and Senate, who had been 
largely members of the Constitutional 
Convention of 1787, which framed the 
great guiding instrument under which 
we live, and President Washington, 
who had presided over its delibera- 
tions, may safely be assumed to have 
known what they were about when 
they formulated and signed the first 
revenue act under that Constitution. If 
there had been any possible question or 
scruple as to the proprietj' and constitu- 
tionality of a Tariff levied for Protec- 
tion, it would have been there ex- 
pressed and developed. But not a 
whisper, not a syllable, of protest was 
uttered or heard upon that point, and 
the reason and object of the act are 
boldlv and simply stated — so simply 
that a child may read and understand: 

For the support of the Government, 
for the discharge of the debts of the 
United States, and the encouragement 
and Protection of manufactures. 

Subsequently, from that time on- 
ward during the sixty fateful and for- 
mative years that followed that his- 
toric enactment, of tlie seven illus- 
trious and duly elected Presidents 
which the South contributed . to tlae 
Union — Washington, Jeffer.son, Madi- 
son, and Monroe, all of Virginia; Jack- 
son and Polk, of Tennessee, and Tay- 
lor, of Louisiana — all save Polk were 
earnest and consistent advocates of 



Sr.EMP. 



77 



the policy of Protection, and assisted 
to the full extent of their power in 
effectuating that policy as the law of 
the land. 

Early Southern Statesmen Thought Pro- 
tection Constitutional and Satisfac- 
tory. 

In none of the expressions quoted of 
the earlier Presidents from the South 
do we find any distrust on their part 
of the principle of Protection, no hint 
of dissatisfaction with its workings, 
no suggestion for a repeal of the Tar- 
iff laws, and no intimation of a need 
for their modification except to give 
them a more "prompt and constant 
guardianship" and to assure "addition- 
al Protection to those articles we are 
prepared to manufacture." Indeed, in 
Madison's elucidation we find a com- 
plete and perfect answer to tliat later 
school of statesmen in the South, un- 
der the leadership of Mr. Calhoun, who 
developed the strange and divergent 
theory that Tariff duties levied for 
purposes of Protection, aside from 
mere revenue, were unconstitutional. 
Even Mr. Calhoun, in the earlier days 
of his statesmanship was a vigorous 
Protectionist. It was at a .later date 
that, intent with a marvelous concen- 
tration upon the perpetuation and ex- 
ploitation of slave labor — in the right- 
eousness and fitness of which he im- 
plicitly believed — he invented and per- 
fected with almost superhuman inge- 
nuity that system of economic and 
political doctrine which embraced as 
cardinal factors inseparably bound to- 
gether, human slavery. State rights, 
nullification, secession, and Free-Trade. 

Protection Impartial as Between Sections. 

A true and correct economic princi- 
ple, such as that underlying the policy 
of a Protective Tariff to a country 
situated and constituted as is the Uni- 
ted States, is abstractly and immutably 
true at all times. It is automatic in 
its action. It is uniform and imper- 
sonal in its application, like the prin- 
ciple of gravitation, or that mysterious 
law of physics that holds the planets 
in their courses. It Is impartial In its 
operation, like the sun and the rain, 
shining and falling upon the broad 
earth, with its hills and valleys and 
plains, without distinction of artificial 
boundary lines between townships, 



counties, and States. Once true, it is 
always unchangeably true, yesterday, 
to-day. and forever. Provided condi- 
tions remain the same, the lapse of 
time makes no fundamental difference. 
The passage of a day is as a thou- 
sand years, and a thousand years are 
as one day. With it — 

An age shall fleet like earthly year; 
Its years as moments shall endure. 

The value of the policy of Protection 
to domestic industry in all its forms 
was demonstrated in the South at the 
beginning of our history as a nation, 
and its value during the past three 
decades, and especially to-day, I shall 
proceed presently to show. A Protect- 
ive Tariff was beneficial in the days 
of Washington, of Adams, of Jefferson, 
of Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Tay- 
lor. It has been beneficial under all 
Republican Presidents — and they have 
all been Protectionists — from Abraham 
Lincoln to William H. Taft. [Ap- 
plause.] 

South Returning to Protection. 

The full realization of the truth of 
this reflection is gradually dawning 
upon the progressive people of the 
South. Traditions of the olden time 
still linger, and prejudices begotten of 
suffering and loss are difficult to re- 
move. But they are steadily wearing 
out and are being forgotten. And al- 
ready it is growing clear to the people 
of the South that, in turning from the 
bitter memories of the past generation 
and adopting the approved economic 
principles of to-day they are in reality 
only getting back to the safe and 
beaten highway which their immediate' 
fathers had left, but which their 
grandfathers and great-grandfathers 
had trodden. The sound and success- 
ful economic principles of this present 
hour are precisely those of the found- 
ers and builders of the Republic, as I 
have shown, and in following these we 
are simply availing of the heritage 
established and bequeathed to us and 
to our children's children from the 
beginning of our National Government. 
Let the dead past bury its dead. 
Over the issues of the past let us draw 
the veil. While we of the South revere 
the memories of our gallant confeder- 
ate soldiers — In the care of whose 
graves the North now magnanimously 
shares — whose 'valor was demonstrated 
upon and whose blood christened un- 



SLEMP. 



numbered battlefields, yet we are 
proud to-day to take our place among 
our sister States in the glorious Union, 
one and inseparable. We of the South 
have set and are setting our faces 
cheerfully and hopefully toward a 
brighter day, and the new industrial 
era that began in the South in 1880, 
under Republican economic policies 
derived from the wisdom of our fore- 
fathers, is growing more splendid and 
wonderful each year, evoking expres- 
sions of astonishment and delight from 
those who witness its visible mani- 
festations. 

This is our time of thrift, of commerce, 

of art, and of science. 
And Nature, our nursing mother, heal- 

eth the hurts of war. 

Republican Gains in the South. 

This growing demand for Protection 
in the South is reflected in the recent 
national political contest, in which the 
principal gains made by the Repub- 
lican party were in the South. Exam- 
ining the results of that contest, we 
observe that Republican gains were 
registered in eight Southern States 
and Democratic loss sustained in eight 
Democratic States. Three Republican 
Congressmen from North Carolina, two 
additional Republicans, and some from 
Missouri (one of whom was formerly 
a Democratic Representative) are here 
for the first time to advocate the cause 
of Protection, not only for their own 
districts, but as a great American na- 
tional policy. 

It does not require a great stretch of 
the imagination to suppose that, sooner 
or later, a broader vision will come 
to these gentlemen, and that they 
would have Protection not alone for 
their State products, but would also 
apply this Protection nationally and 
have Protection for all American prod- 
ucts. We no longer liear from the 
South that Protection is robbery, as 
declared in a recent Democratic na- 
tional platform, but we do hear about 
the Inequitable distribution of the 
benefits of Protection. Horned Pro- 
tectionists and robber barons may be 
stalking through the land with evil 
designs against all mankind, but since 
we have entertained a few of them in 
the South, others are cordially invited 
to follow. We do not ferl quite so un- 
friendly to our Northern neighbor who 
puts his money in a Southern factory, 



gives employment to our laborers, and 
a home market for our farm products, 
as we did when, forty-five years ago, 
we were trying to keep him out of 
Richmond. President Taft aptly said, 
in Atlanta, January 18, 1909: 

The man who is prosperous and suc- 
cessful forgets his traditional enmities 
and causes of bitterness and yields eas- 
ily to the conciliatory advances of his 
neighbors. 

The Southern Democratic Congressman's 

Dilemma. 

And when our good Southern people 
themselves try the same experiment of 
building a factory — and many of them 
have done so — and a revision of the 
Tariff is announced, forthwith they 
write their Congressman, usually a 
modern-day Democrat, and ask him 
for Protection, I imagine they get a 
reply something like this: "You know 
I am a Democrat and have made 
speeches all my life against the Pro- 
tective-Tariff principle. But I must 
confess that my views have undergone 
some change, and I now have 'Protec- 
tion proclivities' for products in my 
own district. What you demand is 
contrary to our Democratic platform 
declaratioh, but is essential to us 
locally, as a business proposition. 
Without appearing to be inconsistent, 
which really I am not, I believe we 
can get the desired Protection by a 
duty, apparently for revenue only, or 
one simply for coinpetitive Protection. 
I have never had opportunity publicly 
to favor this sort of Protection, be- 
cause, during campaigns when, in or- 
der to preserve the purity of our race, 
I have given exclusive attention to 
the 'negro question.' " 

We realize their political dilemma, 
and while their inconsistencies may be 
amusing, yet I feel they ought to be 
pitied rather than censured. But why 
should the cry of our Southern inter- 
ests for help in the way of fostering 
Protection be lost to the ear of the 
great Republican party because, for- 
sooth, that call has had to come 
mainly through Democratic channels? 
The Republican party has a great op- 
portunity to do a just and magnani- 
mous act, tlie effect of which will be 
not only life-giving to these indus- 
tries and uplifting to a great Nation, 
but the consequence of which will be 
far-reaching to the advancement of 



SHARP. RICHARDSON. REYNOLDS. 



79 



the benign policies of our party among 
these people. 



The Excellent Work of the Com- 
mittee on Ways and Means. 

From the Congressional Record of April z, 
1909. 
WILLIAM G. SHARP, of Ohio. Mr. 
Chairman: I have listened with deep 
interest to the many able addresses 
upon this important subject of the 
Tariff during the past three or four 
days, and I but follow the precedent 
established in not a few of these 
speeches, but with no less personal 
sincerity. I trust, in congratulating 
the Committee on Ways and Means for 
the excellent work and the conscien- 
tious discrimination that it has put 
upon this important measure. I be- 
lieve also that not only the thanks of 
this body but of the entire Nation, is 
due to these men who met here hour 
after hour, day after day, through 
many weeks last fall and laboriously 
worked through this great tangled 
mass of evidence which we have at 
present before us, and I can not let 
the opportunity pass without taking 
occasion to specially comment upon 
the labors of the chairman, the gentle- 
man from New York [Mr. Payne], and 
the minority leader, the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Clark], on this 
side of the House, who, not only in 
their work on the committee, but also 
in their most exhaustive speeches on 
the floor of the House, have done so 
much to explain in detail the impor- 
tant provisions of this bill. 



The Issue Between the Republican 
and Democratic Parties. 

From the Congressional Record of April 2, 
1909. 
WILLIAM RICHARDSON, of Ala- 
bama. The real issue presented by 
this Tariff bill is. Shall the policy of 
Protection for Protection's sake, for 
the benefit of special and favored 
home industries, be continued in our 
country? In its last and true analy- 
sis the Republican party in this bill 
and every Tariff law enacted by that 
party has stood for and stands now 
for this doctrine. If a duty for Pro- 
tection of a home industry incidentally 



or otherwise produces revenue, the 
Republican theory is that the iinposi- 
tion of such a duty was not for reve- 
nue, but it was to prohibit foreign 
competition with a particular home 
industry'. The Democratic party con- 
tends that every Tariff duty imposed 
should primarily be for revenue, giv- 
ing such incidental Protection between 
the actual and honest cost of labor at 
home and abroad. That is the issue 
on the floor of this House now be- 
tween the Republican and Democratic 
parties. 



A Tariff for Prosperity, Happiness 
and the Advancement of Our Peo= 
pie. 

From the Congressional Record of April 2, 
1909. 

JOHN M. REYNOLDS, of Pennsyl- 
vania. I am glad to say that the great 
industrial center which I represent, in 
its railroads, mines, steel and iron 
works, and its agricultural interests, 
view the task before Congress as a 
work in hand, in response to the de- 
mands of the country and the pledges 
of the respective political parties, and 
that the Congress has undertaken the 
execution of this trust with a consci- 
entious desire to respond to the senti- 
ment of the different sections of our 
country in an effort to adjust rates in 
harmony with the general welfare and 
the. needs of individual Interests and 
communities, to the end that no grow- 
ing and important industry in the Na- 
tion's development shall be imperiled 
and that the consuming public shall 
not be unduly burdened. In harmony 
with this sentiment, it is essential 
that the task be approached in the 
spirit of concession and compromise, 
for otherwise, Tariff legislation will 
be impossible in a domain stretching 
from ocean to ocean, with every vari- 
ety of soil, climate, and production, 
with industries so diversified over a 
wide expanse of territory, in which 
the matter of transportation is an ele- 
ment of such transcendent importance 
as here. 

In anything I may have to say I 
shall try to keep out of the realm of 
theories, leaving the course of our in- 
dustrial development and th'e general 
happiness and advancement of our 
people as living and eternal witnesses 



80 



MOORE. 



to the wisdom of the policy of Pro- 
tection. The opposition, our friends 
on the other side of the House, while 
conceding the necessity of raising 
revenue hy duties laid upon imports, 
throug-h long years have wavered over 
terms and policies, often ignoring con- 
ditions for theories, standing one time 
for Tariff for revenue, next for Tariff 
for revenue only, then for Tariff for 
revenue with incidental Protection. If 
to them the term "Protection" is a 
hated word, and the line of demarca- 
tion be drawn at this day between 
"Tariff for Protection" and "Tariff for 
revenue," I may confidentially ask at 
this hour, when theories play such an 
unimportant part, that we meet upon 
common ground and enact a law which 
we shall call a "Tariff for prosperity." 
But I remind you, so you may not be 
deceived, that in the Republican nom- 
enclature it will be classed as "a Tar- 
iff for Protection." [Applause.] 

Has 1/ indicated its Claim. 

The Protective-Tariff system has 
vindicated its claim to be the perma- 
nent policy of this country. It has 
placed the farm and the factory side 
by • side, furnished a remunerative 
market for the products of the former, 
and thereby promoted and sustained 
the interests of agriculture. It has 
provided for our people work and 
wages, homes and education, and all 
the comforts of life, and falsified all 
the doctrines of Free-Traders since 
the days of Richard Cobden. It has 
kept the balance of trade with us and 
demonstrated by experience that under 
low Tariffs that balance has been 
against us. It makes the home mar- 
ket our own and sustains our indus- 
trial strength, cheapens the products 
to the consumer, diversifies our In- 
dustries, thereby employing our capi- 
tal and labor and furnishing oppor- 
tunities for the brain and energy of 
every man seeking employment. 

Yes; as has been well said, it has 
given our laboring people homes and 
land and filled them with hope for 
themselves and their children. In 
Great Britain and Continental Europe 
the scant wages of the workingman 
leaves to him intemperance and pau- 
perism as his only refuge, whereas 
from the conclusions of the Mosely 
commission, composed of offlcers of the 



leading labor unions of England, 
which visited the United States In 
1902, we were proud to note the state- 
ment that the American workingman 
was better paid, better clothed, better 
housed, and withal infinitely more sober 
than his British neighbor. [Applause.] 



Protection Has Earned Its Right to 
Respect. 

From the Congressional Record of April 2, 
1909. 

J. HAMPTON MOORE, of Pennsyl- 
vania. The district which I represent 
in this House has not left unimproved 
a single acre of ground, save public 
parks. Almost every foot of it has 
been built over by industrial estab- 
lishments, warehouses, stores, and 
dwellings. There is not an item in 
this bill which does not in some way 
affect these interests. 

We believe in helping the planter, 
for we take his raw material and 
fashion it in our mills. We believe in 
assisting the farmer, for we take his 
grain and his produce and use it 
upon our table. We believe in assist- 
ing every section, of the country, for 
the product of each goes into this dis- 
trict, where it is woven in form for 
the consumer in the South, in the 
East, and in the West. 

Verily, he who would ennoble life 
upon the farm can not afford to quar- 
rel with the maker of his tools. As 
one advances in the social scheme so 
the other does. Each is a producer 
of the Nation's wealth; each is a con- 
sumer of the wealth the other pro- 
duces. The farmer may not with- 
draw from the wage-earner lest he 
lose his market; the wage-earner can 
not withdraw from the farmer lest 
he lose his market. If the evil day 
shall come when one shall fail to 
know the other, the farmer may sur- 
vive the winter, but the unemployed 
will overrun his fields or starve. 
From that community of interests into 
wliich the fortunes of tlie farmer and 
the industrialist have been interwoven 
there' can be no severance, except the 
Institutions they have jointly reared 
.'^hall crumble and decay. 

Protection has earned its right to 
respect. It has worked for us in our 
own land. It has been watched and 
emulated in others. Its benefits have 



RANSDELL. BURKE. 



81 



reached the remotest hamlet; its bur- 
dens, if any, have been imperceptible. 
It has raised the standard of Ameri- 
can life. A producer of revenue, it 
has relieved the people of direct taxa- 
tion. As a national system it has 
worked well, and upon reasonable 
lines it should be continued. 

I speak as a Protectionist who be- 
lieves in his own land and the ad- 
vancement of his own people. If the 
standard of living in other nations be 
not so high as ours, the bars should 
rise until the foreigner is our equal 
with regard to men and with respect 
to materials. We may accept the 
other nations at our standard, but we 
can not consent to be dragged to 
theirs. We can be fair, we can even- 
be gener'^us, but nowhere in human 
philosophy is it written that we shall 
neglect our own firesides to become 
the almoners of the earth. 



The South is Rapidly Changing its 
Views on the Tariff. 

From the Congressional Record of April z, 
iQog. 

JOSEPH E. RANSDELL, of Louisi- 
ana. The South has a deep interest 
In the Tariff. It has not secured finan- 
cial returns from the Protective fea- 
tures of the system equal to those sec- 
tions of the Union largely engaged in 
manufacturing. Nevertheless, it has 
many industries which are affected. 

The Tariff is well described as a 
local issue, and a man's views thereon, 
be he Democrat or Republican, are 
very much influenced by his surround- 
ings. My State has so many industries 
— salt, tobacco, rice, sugar, lumber, 
and so forth — which receive benefit 
from the Protective features of the 
Tariff that most Louisianians lean 
somewhat toward that policy, and, in 
my judgment, the South is rapidly 
changing its Vie%ys on this subject. 
It is gratifying to note, however, that 
the principal Louisiana products in- 
cluded in the pending bill are large 
revenue producers, and defensible 
from the extreme Democratic view of 
a Tariff for revenue only. 

Lincoln once said: 

I do not know much about political 
economy, but I do know that when we 
purchase a ton of steel rails from Great 
Britain for $100 we get the rails and 
Great Britain gets the money, and when 



we produce the rails from our own 
mines and in our own mills, we have 
both the money and the rails. 

[Applause.] 

Now, surely the latter condition Is 
much better than the former, and it 
seems right and proper to assist in 
procuring and maintaining it by wise 
Tariff enactments whenever possible. 
Partly as the result of such laws, we 
have for years been producing "our 
own rails from our own mines and in 
our own mills,'" and innumerable fac- 
tories of every kind and sort have 
sprung up and prospered in such man- 
ner as to make the United States the 
richest and most marveloi;s commer- 
cial nation on earth. [Applause.] 



Republicans Should Stand By the 
Party. 

From the Congressional Record of April 2, 
igog. 

JAMES F. BURKE, of Pennsylvania. 
The gentleman and his party are given 
to the prediction of winning more 
political victories six months in ad- 
vance than any other political organi- 
zation that ever brought men together 
in the bonds of political brotherhood. 
The only difference between their 
party and ours is that they predict 
and we fulfill. [Applause on the Re- 
publican side.] He claims, also, in 
reply to a query from the distin- 
guished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Keifer], that the last Republican Presi- 
dent stole a part of their platform. 
I, sir, congratulate the Democratic 
party that at any time or at any place 
it wrote anything worth stealing by 
anybody. [Applause on the Republic- 
an side.] 

And, again, he says: "Come back! 
Come back! Come back!" Why, that 
is a familiar cry from them. The 
Democratic party has been crying 
"Come back! come back! come back!" 
for half a century. The difference be- 
tween them and us is that we cry: 
"Come forward! Come forward! March 
onward instead of mai^king time!" 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 

It is not unnatural or unprecedented 
in political history that the minority 
party should indulge in tlie widest and 
wildest criticism of llie measure 
framed by the majority; but a con- 
clusive answer to it all Is furnished 



82 



BURKE. KOPP. 



by the fact that with all their talents 
they have hopelessly failed, through 
sheer inability, to offer in any crystal- 
lized form any substitute measure for 
the 6he now Under discussion. 

In fact, if 24 Republican Members 
were to be ill or absent on the day the 
final vote is taken on the Tariff bill, 
the Democratic party would be with- 
out a remedy except to vote down the 
proposed measure and go back to the 
Dingley bill until the scattered and 
discordant forces of Democracy could 
frame a new bill, which from former 
experiences would carry us into the 
period of the next congressional cam- 
paign. [Applause.] 

Stand By the Party. 

Nothing, therefore, can justify us as 
Republicans in turning our backs for 
a moment upon our party and joining 
with that diametrically opposite ele- 
ment of the Democracy, and thus not 
only dela5% but ultimately defeat, the 
expressed desire of the American peo- 
ple that the Republican party as a 
united national body should frame our 
revenue legislation for the next de- 
cade. 

From Monday on our watchword 
should be "Action!" Let voices cease 
and votes begin. The mines, the mills, 
and the men of the Nation await our 
verdict. The great industrial world 
tells us every day that while many 
tongues are busy here, many hands 
are idle there. Let congressional dis- 
cussion end that commercial develop- 
ment may begin. Let us conclude the 
roll call on the bill and begin the roll 
call in the mill. 

Let us cheer the hearts, gladden the 
eyes, and strengthen the arms of the 
waiting millions of enterprising Amer- 
icans who are more eager to-day than 
in all the hopeful hours of history to 
add to those substantial achievements 
for which the American character and 
the American Republic are famed and 
respected by the toiling, thinking peo- 
ple in every corner of the globe. [Ap- 
plause.] 



Nothing Is Cheap When a Man Has 
Not the Money to Buy it. 

From the Congressional Record of .Ifril j. 
ARTliril AV. KOrr, of Wisconsin. 



jNIy plea for a high wage for the work- 
ingman is not necessarily that he may 
acquire wealth, as much as I should 
like to see hini do that, but that every 
American w^orkingman. whether in the 
East or in the West, the North or the 
South, may receive such a wage that 
he may keep his little family about 
him, that he may feed them well, dress^ 
them decently, educate them thor- 
oughly, and bring them up to Chris- 
tian manhood and womanhood. 

The 391 Members here are looking" 
after their various districts and the 
interests which affect their people. 
The statesman who years ago declared 
that the Tariff was a local issue was 
ridiculed, but subsequent history has 
shown that he was right. Each Rep- 
resentative is, in effect asking Con- 
gress to Protect his producing indus- 
tries, but to place the lowest possible 
rate on what he consumes. Of course 
this Tariff bin must be created by 
giving and taking and doing that 
which seems best for the greatest 
number of people. As the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Cushman] stat- 
ed the other day, the barometer of 
prosperity is not the cost price of 
articles, but the wage scale. Nothing 
is cheap when a man has not the 
money to buy it, and nothing is dear 
when a man has the price. 

Universal prosperity will only come 
when the great laboring class who are 
creating the wealth of this Nation are 
employed twelve months of the year 
at an ample wage. The laboring man 
when he is thus employed keeps up his 
home, educates his children, and con- 
tributes to the general good of the 
country. While he is idle, the con- 
trary is true in each case. 

My special plea is for the zinc min- 
ers, but w^hile I ask Protection for 
them I also ask for Protection to all 
industry employing labor which is met 
with undue competition froin abroad, 
whether it be the mine, the farm, or 
the factory. 

I realize that many claim that Pro- 
tection is needed when such is not the 
fact; but whenever the conditions are 
such that a producer can not make his 
product by paying a good wage to his 
workmen and leaving a reasonable 
profit for himself, by reason of the 
rlieaper cost of production elsewhere, 
I am in favor of Protecting that in- 
dustry and giving to it a Protection 



CURRIER. LANGLEY. AUSTIN. 



83 



equal to the diffei'ence in the cost of 
production here and abroad, g-iving" 
due consideration to economic condi- 
tions and difference in the efflciency 
of labor. 

I trust that the provision with ref- 
erence to zinc ore will pass the House* 
in its present form. 



Why Carry Out Democratic Prom- 
ises? 

From the Congressional Record of April 2, 
1909. 

FRANK D. CURRIER, of New Hamp- 
shire. Why should a Republioswi Con- 
gress single out one great industry 
and make it the sole exception to the 
rule laid down in the Republican plat- 
form? The Democratic platform in- 
dorsed this policy, but the Republican 
platform did not. Why ignore our 
party pledges and carry out the Demo- 
crats' promises in this case? There is 
no excuse or justification for it. Oh, 
some of the newspapers want this 
done. I have never believed in the 
policy of destroying' one industry that 
some other industry might make a 
little more money. 

In my belief, the men who are clam- 
oring for free print paper — and a $2 
duty is practically equivalent to that — 
will be greatly disappointed should 
they get this legislation. Do they 
think the paper mills of Canada will 
be conducted with any regard for the 
welfare of American newspapers? 



Protection To Every American In- 
dustry. 

From the Congressional Record of April 2, 
1909. 
JOHN W. LANGLEY, of Kentucky. 
In reply to my friend from Alabama, 
I have no hesitancy in saying that I 
am unwilling to have the present Tar- 
iff removed from lumber. If my friend 
[Mr. Sisson] will give me the time, I 
want to say that the reason I am 
unwilling to have that Tariff removed 
from lumber is that I believe in the 
American doctrine of Protection to 
American industries and American la- 
bor, and I am glad to have this oppor- 
tunity to say that. [Applause on the 
Republican side.] 



I do not believe the duty on lumber 
ouglit to be reduced to $1. Instead of 
that, I should like to have it increased 
if I could. 

A MEMBER. What about free 
hides? 

Mr. LANGLEY. I am opposed to 
Free-Trade in everything that we pro- 
duce. I am in favor of Protection to 
every American industry. 



A Southern Republican Objects to 
the Bill as Not Sufficiently Pro= 
tective. 

From the Congressional Record of April s> 
1909. 

RICHARD W. AUSTIN, of Tennessee. 
I represent on this floor a district in 
Eastern Tennessee that for sixty years 
has cast a vote on this side of the 
House of Representatives for the Pro- 
tective-Tariff system. That district in 
McKinley's campaign gave a majority 
of 18,600 for Protection. The people 
of that district believe in the Tariff 
doctrine of Henry Clay, of Kentucky. 
They believe in the same Protective- 
Tariff policy which was advocated 
upon this floor by the lamented Will- 
iam McKinley; the same Protective- 
Tariff policy which was so ably urged 
and indorsed here by William D. Kel- 
ley — "Pig Iron" Kelley — of the great 
State of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Chairman, the Payne bill as it 
now stands is not a true Republican 
Tariff bill. It is false to the teach- 
ings of Henry Clay, "Pig Iron" Kelley, 
William McKinley, Dingley, and the 
previous professions of the chairman 
of the present Ways and Means Com- 
mittee. Its enactment into a law 
without amendments would not only 
close down hundreds of mines, fur- 
naces, and sawmills, throw thousands 
out of employment, but reduce the 
freight business of our Southern rail- 
roads 30 per cent, and the reduction 
of the operating force and wages upon 
every transportation line in the South. 

It would rob the National Treasury 
of a present revenue on Canadian coal 
and lumber, Cuban ore, and foreign 
pig iron of over $2,000,000. In the 
face of these facts, we are told a new 
Tariff is needed in order to raise addi- 
tional revenues. It proposes to place 
a tax upon every American user of 



84 



AUSTIN. POINDEXTER. 



tea and coffee, articles we do not pro- 
duce, and for which we need no Pro- 
tection. If "Jim" Hill, of the Great 
Northern Railway, desires to increase 
his tonnage on British Columbia coal 
and lumber and to find a new market 
for his foreign mines at the expense 
of Montana, Washington, Utah, and 
Wyoming, I protest against its being 
done at the expense of our National 
Treasurj^ and upon the ruins of our 
now prosperous Western and Southern 
industrial mining centers. 

If this bill is not amended in line 
and in harmony with all previous Re- 
publican Tariff bills, I intend to vote 
against it. I would do this if I had 
to stand alone on this side of the 
Chamber. [Applause.] 

Why Go to Canada for Lumber? 

I ask the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means to 
tell us why we should go to Canada 
for lumber, why go to British Colum- 
bia and Nova Scotia for coal, or to 
Cuba for iron ore, when we have all 
these materials in abundance in the 
United States? 

We bought last year $418,264,000 
worth of foreign-made articles. Every 
one of the articles included In the 
list could have been manufactured in 
America. We shipped across the At- 
lantic Ocean from Memphis, New Or- 
leans, and Savannah so-called "raw" 
material in the way of cotton. The 
English people at Manchester and oth- 
er points made it into cotton goods, 
reshipped it across the Atlantic Ocean, 
and sold in this country $64,379,000 
worth of cotton goods, and the Ameri- 
can consumer paid the freight both 
ways and also furnished employment 
to thousands of mill operatives in 
England. Now, gentlemen on the 
other side talk a great deal about 
entering the foreign markets with 
American -made goods. The able Rep- 
resentative from California [Mr. Mc- 
Kinlay], I think, satisfied every one 
the other night that it will be only a 
question of a short time when the 
Japanese will supply the entire cotton 
and other markets of the Orient. 
There Is no possible chance of the 
American people ever occupying or 
filling the European market. I want 
to say, after an official residence of 
over a year in Europe, where I had 



an opportunity to personally examine 
6,000 consular invoices, that, on ac- 
count of the high wages in this coun- 
try and the exceedingly low wages 
and immense overpopulation in all 
European countries, the American 
^manufacturers are never going to be 
able to sell in the same European 
markets with the English, or the 
Scotch, or the German, or the French. 



There Would Be No Dishonor if the 
South Should Favor the Policy of 
Protection. 

From tlie Congressional Record of April $, 
1909. 

MILES POINDEXTER, of Washing- 
ton. Now, gentlemen of the South, it 
is all very well for you on your side 
to deliver your orations upon the 
academic theory of a Tariff for reve- 
nue which you read and learned from 
the pages of the orations of your great 
statesmen that lived before the war 
when different conditions existed, 
when you had slave labor, when the 
South was purely an agricultural 
country, and when you had no manu- 
factures. Now you have different con- 
ditions. .You have a cotton crop which 
you ship every year to England to 
manufacture and bring back to sell at 
our own doors. There would be no 
dishonor in the South or In the Demo- 
cratic party if it should favor a policy 
which would enable that great sec- 
tion, which in my judgment in the not 
distant future "vvill be the richest sec- 
tion of the Union, to manufacture the 
products of your agriculture on the 
ground where they are produced. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 

You have the greatest harbors in 
the world, and with the proper enter- 
prise, if you had the ingenuity, if you 
had what the English call *the "open 
mind" that these New Englanders 
have, who have been declaring for 
Protection generation after genera- 
tion, when conditions have changed, so 
that they desire low Tariffs or Free- 
Trade in certain articles, you could 
accomplish much. They come like 
business men and ask for it and make 
a campaign to get it. If you want 
and need Protection, why can not you 
throw away the outworn doctrine 

Mr. HEFLIN. Will the gentleman 
permit an interruption? 



t'OlNDKXTER. HKFLIX. TOWNSEND. MORSE. 



sn 



Mr. POINDEXTER. Yes. sir. 

Mr. HEFLIN. The gentleman speaks 
about the South. Does not the gentle- 
man believe if steel rails were cheaper 
and cotton factory machinery were 
cheaper, we could have built up the 
South more rapidly than we have un- 
der the high prices? 

Mr. POINDEXTER. No, sir; I do 
not think you could have built it up 
as rapidly as you have. "Whatever 
you have done there, and you have 
accomplished wonders, has been done 
under a Republican Protective-Tariff. 
I do not think things were ever so 
stagnated in the South as they were 
under a Democratic Tariff. I do not 
say it was due to that, but certainly 
the Democratic Tariff did not benefit 
the situation any. [Applause on the 
Republican side.] 



The Republican Party Needs No 
Apology for Supporting the Policy 
of Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of April 3, 
1909. 

CHARLES E. TOWNSEND, of Michi- 
gan. I have been sitting here for the 
last three weeks listening to the dire 
threats of disaster and to the awful 
pictures of calamity made by our 
Democratic brethren, disclosing the 
condition of . the country in case this 
bill should become a law. I have 
heard them in one breath laud the 
sentiment of nonpartisanship, and then 
I have never in all my experience seen 
such drastic measures to keep men in 
line as have been used by leaders on 
that side. I would have perhaps some 
fear of the result of the enactment 
of this measure, based upon the state- 
ments of Democratic orators, were it 
not for the fact that the same state- 
ments which they have made now they 
have made for several years hereto- 
fore, and they were made very recent- 
ly in the campaign of last fall, and the 
result has certainly been very satis- 
factory to the Republican party. 

The Republican party does not have 
to make any apology for having sup- 
ported that theory of political econ- 
omy which believes in building up 
American industry, and at the same 
time securing from those industries, or 
securing rather from the goods which 



compete with those indtistries, the 
ways and means for Supporting the 
Government of the United States. 

So. Mr. Chairman, we contend that 
that is our principle; and, my South- 
ern friends, that is the principle which 
ultimately you must adopt. Since I 
have been here I have seen many of 
you come gradually over to the notion 
of Protection. You may rail and con- 
demn the men on your side who shall 
vote for the special interests of their 
districts, but the principle of Protec- 
tion is abroad in the land, and you 
have got to adopt it. 

The Whole Southland Has Profited By 
Protection. 

There is scarcely a district in your 
whole great Southland which has ad- 
vanced greatly during the last few 
years but what must attribute the 
cause of this advancement to the fact 
that it has encouraged within its midst 
the great manufacturing interests 
which ought to be established there 
and which are more and more locating 
in its midst. 

So I say that principle has come to 
stay. There is no question about it. 
The gentleman who has just spoken 
said he was in favor of a Tariff for 
revenue only. He admitted that the 
Government must be largely supported 
by duties on imports, but I did not 
hear him mention a single item upon 
which he would place a duty. I sub- 
mit it as my honest opinion that the 
Committee on Ways and Means could 
not have inserted one single item in 
this bill that would not have been 
subject to attack by gentlemen on 
that side, because their position is one 
of opposition. Where are you going 
to raise the revenue for meeting the 
expenses of the Government? You are 
equally responsible with us for those 
expenses. I notice that there is no 
partisanship when it comes to the dis- 
tribution of money out of the Public 
Treasury; each individual here is look- 
ing to obtain as much as possible for 
his district. 



Prosperity Depends Upon Good Tar= 
iff Legislation. 

From the Congressional Record of April 3, 
1909. 
ELMER A. MORSE, of Wisconsin. It 



80 



MORSE. GRONNA. HOWELL. 



is very generally known throvighout 
the country that the most important 
legislation enacted by Congress is the 
Tariff legislation. That is the way in 
which the Government raises the ma- 
jor portion of its revenues; that is 
the source from which the life-giving 
stream of yellow gold emanates. 

Tariff legislation is important, be- 
cause the prosperity of the Nation de- 
pends upon it. The wages of our la- 
boring men, the education of their chil- 
dren, the very life of the Nation, in- 
dustrially, depends upon the Tariff 
legislation. We might almost say that 
the prosperitj', happiness, and well- 
being of the entire Nation is depend- 
ent upon the skill with which Con- 
gress enacts Tariff legislation. 

A good bill means prosperity to all; 
a poor bill means misery, suffering, 
poverty, and degradation. 



The American Farmer Believes in 
the System of Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of April 3, 
1909. 

ASLE J. GRONNA, of North Dakota. 
The time may not be far distant, when 
we shall produce no more wheat than 
we need for home consumption. "When 
that time comes the American farmer 
will demand a Protective duty on 
wheat, and I therefore want to see the 
duty of 25 cents per bushel retained 
in this bill. It is true that that time 
may be some years in the future, but 
we inust remember that we do not pass 
a Tariff bill every j'ear. The Dingley 
law has been in effect for twelve 
years, and if it is found that the pres- 
ent bill will make a good law, which 
I hope and believe tliat it will, it mey 
be allowed to remain on the statute 
books for twelve years or more. 

The principle of the maximum and 
minimum Tariff seems to me to be 
pre-eminently sound. We levy the du- 
ties necessary to Protect our indus- 
tries, and so long as other countries 
treat us fairly their products enjoy 
these rates. If, however, they dis- 
criminate against our products, then 
tlie maximum rates are to be enforced 
against their products. As a matter 
of self-interest, they will accord us 
the same treatment as they do other 
nations, so far as this is possible In 



view of treaties that may exist with 
other nations. Because of the fact 
that there may be treaties existing 
between other nations that can not be 
abrogated for some time, perhaps 
years, but which do not particularly 
affect us, I believe that it will be well 
to change the manner of applying the 
maximum rates, in order that we may 
escape applying them to a country 
that perhaps is admitting all of our 
products on the same basis as those of 
other nations, with the exception of a 
few unimportant articles. 

The American farmer believes in the 
Protective system. Although he has 
TDorne as many of the burdens of Pro- 
tection as the man engaged in any 
other industry and has received less 
direct benefits from it than manufac- 
turers have, he has borne this burden 
uncomplainingly. He is still willing 
to bear his part of the burden, but he 
also wants some of the benefits. 



Under Protection the American Na- 
tion Has Grown from Lusty Youth 
to Vigorous Manhood. 

From the Congressional Record of April 3, 
1909. 

JOSEPH HOWELL, of Utah. Mr. 
Chairman, in order that my attitude 
on this matter may be entirely under- 
stood; in order that the doctrine of 
Protection, as I view it, may be ap- 
preciated, I desire to say that the 
national view point is the only view 
point from which I care to look at or 
observe the doctrine of Protection; 
and the test, w^hich in my weak way 
I shall apply to every Tariff measure, 
which comes before the House for 
consideration and adoption, is this: 
Will the proposed measure tend to 
promote, directly or indirectly, the 
growth and power of this Nation? 
Will it promote the industrial pros- 
perity of the people? Is it fair, just, 
and equitable in its provisions? Will 
it tend to make these United States 
better able to carry out the high des- 
tiny which an All-Wise Providence 
has marked out for it? If it will in 
the main meet these conditions, then 
I am for the measure. 

Acting under a policy which I shall 
not condemn, Congress has seen fit to 
extend to the struggling people of our 



ttOWELL. BOWEit^; 



ft7 



island possessions and to Cuba all pos- 
sible aid and assistance, commercial 
and otherwise. According-ly. trade 
M^ith the United States has been made 
practically free, and the labor of the 
Tropics has met American labor In 
the open field. The result, gentlemen, 
has not been altogrether happy. It 
has not materially assisted the farmer 
to know that ethically he was doing- a 
fine thing. He may, sir, have secured 
from his experience a moral uplift, 
but he got ho bread for his children. 
The situation at times has been most 
discouraging, and fortunate has it 
been that the changes have come grad^ 
ually. 

Those wiio preach and believe in a 
Tariff for* revenue purposes afe. of 
course. Free-Traders. A pure t-evenue 
Tariff contains, of course, no provi- 
sion at all for Protection* nor is this 
purpose contemplated. But, on the 
other hand, the Tariff for Protection is 
expressly framed for the purpose of 
fostering and encouraging home pro^ 
duction. The question of revenue, un- 
der such a Tariff, is secondary. 

If the Protective Tariff has given 
us the steel trust, it must also have 
given to us the steel industry. It 
must have given to us the wonderful 
development in coal and in iron as 
the necessary accompaniments of that 
trust. If the Protective Tariff has 
given to us the sugar trust, it must 
have given also to us the great sugar 
refineries; it must have given to us a 
market for the crude sugar; it must 
have given to us a market for the 
planter's cane and the farmer's beets. 
It would seem, gentlemen, that you 
m'ght better have placed your objec- 
tions to the Protective Tariff on other 
grounds. 

Tlie doctrine of Protection Is not a 
ptranger to this House nor to this 
people. It attended and waited upon 
the birth of this Nation, and it has 
grown venerable in our service. Al- 
ways on the side of those who con- 
tended for a great and strong nation 
and government, it has on more than 
one occasion led its supporting hosts 
to victory. The young Republic was 
scarcely born before its widening eyes 
found their earliest vision filled with 
the sturdy figure of Protection; and 
from that day until the present that 
form and that face have always filled 



the forefront of the Nation's prog:resSi 
Under the wise and kind guidance of 
Protection the American Nation has 
grown from lusty youth to vigorous 
manhood. It has expanded its power 
and strength until, like the little rock 
that Daniel saw cut from the moun- 
tain without hands, it bids fair to roll 
forth until it fills the whole earth. 
Under its benign influence and difeC- 
tion our trackless forests have become 
fertile fields, our catai^acts have be= 
come harnessed giants, our turbulent 
and uncontrolled r-ivers have become 
broad highways of commerce, and 
where was council fire there now is 
the roaring blast of the furnace. We 
have cattle upon a thousand hills, and 
the deseft has indeed been made to 
blossom as the rose. [Loud applause 
oh the Republican side.] 



Southern Democratic Approval of 
Tariff on Lumber* 

From the Congressional Record of April j, 
1909- 
EATON J. BOWERS, of Mississippi. 
I have always regarded the present 
duty on lumber as defensible as a 
revenue duty. Ever since 1899 the im- 
ports of lumber and other forest prod- 
ucts have been steadily on the in- 
crease. Immediately following the en- 
actment of the Ding-ley law there WaS 
a terhporary cessation and consider- 
able falling off of lumber imports; 

•but beginning with the year 1900, im- 
portations were stimulated and have 
increased steadily since. I have 
caused to he prepared by the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor some 
figures showing the amount of lumber 
and shingles imported into the Uni- 

*ted States from the British-American 
possessions, which I shall place in the 
Record at the conclusion of my re- 
marks, and to which I direct atten- 
tion. The estimated ad valorem upon 
the imports from this territory was, 
based upon prices in 1908. 10.70 per 
cent. Can it be said that a duty 
which is less than 11 per cent ad va- 
lorem and which yielded a revenue of 
13.650,000 is not a revenue duty? [Ap- 
plause.] Can it be said that sucli a 
duty is not justified eitlier by the im- 
posts and burdens that are laid upon 
the business or by the ainount of 
money which it jdelds for the support 



88 



GAINES. 



of the Government as well? [Ap- 
plause.] Certainly, when both propo- 
sitions are considered, it can not be 
contended that the duty on lumber is 
either Protective or prohibitory, or 
that the revenue which it produces is 
so small and unimportant in amount 
as to be lightly considered when de- 
termining- how we should raise gov- 
ernmental expenses. This bill cuts 
the duty in half, making an ad valo- 
rem duty of 51/2 per cent, certainly 
a revenue duty; and yet it is proposed 
to destroy even that. [Applause.] 



The Beet Sugar Industry Largely 
Dependent upon Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of April 3, 
1909. 

JOSEPH H. GAINES, of West Vir- 
ginia. Our Democratic friends take 
great pleasure in referring to the fact 
that even under the Republican party 
and under a high Protective law the 
country has witnessed a panic. How- 
ever, every member of the "Ways and 
Means Committee discovered very soon 
after we had begun our hearings last 
fall that the depression, which was 
world-wide, was less severe in this 
country than anywhere else in the 
commercial world, and that the condi- 
tions which precipitated it not only 
did not originate in America, and not 
only were not in any sense due to the 
Dingley Tariff act, but that, originat- 
ing elsewhere, the Dingley Tariff law 
delayed the beginning of the depres- 
sion in America and mitigated the 
severity of its operation in this coun- 
try. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Does the gentle- 
man from West Virginia think we 
have lopped off enough of the duty on 
refined sugar to affect the sugar Trust? 

Mr. GAINES. "The gentleman from 
West Virginia" thinks that we have 
lopped off all the excess duty on re- 
fined sugar that could safely be taken 
off without threatening the American 
beet-sugar industry, which the Re- 
publican party determines to foster in 
this country. If It can. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] The difference 
between the gentleman from Georgia 



[Mr. Hardwick] and "the gentleman 
from West Virginia" is this: The gen- 
tleman from Georgia looks always 
with suspicion upon the effort to de- 
velop any great American industry 
here by the policy of Protection, and 
"the gentleman from West Virginia" 
looks without suspicion upon that at- 
tempt. 

My investigations,, and I think any 
other person who investigates it will 
arrive at the same conclusion, lead 
me to this result, that the beet-sugar 
industry is largely dependent, and 
that in any event, if j'ou were to re- 
move the fostering care of Protection 
the beet-sugar industry of this country 
would go to pieces at once. It un- 
doubtedly is true that the beet-sugar 
people can not continue to manufac- 
ture sugar in this country unless the 
policy of the Republican party is con- 
tinued with reference to that product. 

It seems to me that the proposition 
is not so much who owns the beet- 
sugar factories, as whether they could 
exist and thus supply a market for 
the farmers' beets and employment 
for their employees if the Tariff did 
not exist. 

Not a Question of Trusts. 

Whatever may be said about any 
relations between the beet-sugar peo- 
ple and the great sugar trust, this 
much is very certain: The people who 
do the work in America at American 
wages for the beet-sugar factories be- 
long to no trust. The farmers in 
Michigan, Colorado, in the State of 
Nebraska, and in California, and in 
many other sections of the United 
States are not engaged in any trust 
and are entitled to the Protection of 
the Republican party and they will re- 
ceive It. Under the leadership of the 
Republican party the American^ Gov- 
ernment has deemed that its first duty 
was to its own people. Protectionists 
think that the peace and security 
which our comparatively isolated posi- 
tion gives, that the extent and fertil- 
ity of our soil, the unrivaled richness 
and diversity of our resources, our 
free government, and the average su- 
periority of our people make it possi- 
ble for the people of this country to 
enjoy a greater degree of average 
prosperity than the people of any 
other country can possibly have. 



GAINES. 



89 



Now. a good Tariff law. a good reve- 
nue-raising law, is one that will do 
exactly what the Dingley law has 
aone — some years raise more revenue 
than needed, and some years raise less 
revenue than needed for current ex- 
penses, but always keeping a safe, 
satisfactory amount in the Treasury 
of the United States. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] 

The Panic of 1907. 

The facts were that the year 1907 
could not be taken as a normal and 
natural year. The importations had 
been largely in excess of what they 
had ever been before. I took the trou- 
ble the other d_ay to add the importa- 
tions for the twelve months preced- 
ing October, 1906, and found they were 
the largest the country had ever had; 
and yet, notwithstanding that fact, 
the importations for the twelve months 
immediately prior to October, 1907, ex- 
ceeded those of the twelve months 
preceding October. 1906, by more than 
the tremendous sum of $225,000,000. 

So it would seem that the lesson 
from that panic Is this: That depres- 
sion began in the rest of the world 
more than fifteen months before we 
had it in this country. The rest of 
the world did not understand what 
had struck them. Their producers be- 
gan to ship their surplus to this coun- 
try, and when their market failed, of 
course, they were compelled to seek 
other markets; and instead of limiting 
their production, they attempted to 
decrease their cost by increasing their 
output, and soon flooded this country 
with their products. It is, as I have 
stated before, a very interesting ques- 
tion for speculation, whether we could 
not have escaped the panic if there 
had not been dumped Into this coun- 
try that additional $225,000,000 of for- 
fign goods over and above the un- 
usual importations for the previous 
twelve months beginning with Octo- 
ber, 1906. 

The Republican party may have had 
a panic once, but the people of this 
country did not want to turn their 
business over to the excellent gentle- 
men on that side of the Chamber, 
worthy Representatives of those dis- 
organized citizens of this country 
known by the various names of "Free- 
Traders," "revenue-Tariff men," "Tar- 



iff reformers," "incidental Protection- 
ists," "sectionalists," "free silverites." 
and "Populists"; but they preferred to 
trust the Republican party in spite of 
the objection to which you have re- 
ferred. [Loud applause on the Repub- 
lican side.] I yield to the gentleman 
from Ohio. 

Protection and Hosiery. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Why did they In- 
crease the duty on the cheaper grades 
of stockings? 

Mr. GAINES. For the purpose of 
Protection, pure and simple, and In 
order to bring it about, for we know 
it should be done, that they shall be 
made in this country. Tlie proportion 
of stockings imported into the country 
shows that that industry Is not Pro- 
tected, that the rates are not Pro- 
tective. It is not a question of theory; 
it is absolutely demonstrable. There 
is no doubt that there was not Pro- 
tection In this line of manufacture, 
and we would have been recreant to 
the American people who indorsed the 
Republican platform if we had not 
given consideration to the cost of pro- 
duction In foreign countries and in 
America In that line of manufacture. 
We but obeyed the mandate of the 
people who elected us to office. 

Protection and Tin Plate. 

Before the passage of the McKinley 
law we produced no tin plate. The 
next 3'ear we produced only 595 tons. 
In 1907 we produced 495,000 tons — 
practically half a million tons. A ton 
of tin plate will supply the cans, 
kitchen utensils, and what not of a 
good many users of tin plate. The 
truth is that not only the American 
people, but all the people of the world 
get their tin plate more cheaply be- 
cause America became a producer as 
well as a consumer of tin plate. To 
the extent our demand for foreign tin 
plate was withdrawn, tlie Welsh tin 
plate was compelled to compete more 
fiercely In the rest of the world's mar- 
kets. Prices the tin-plate people had 
theretofore maintained could be main- 
tained no longer; the users of tin 
plate, to-wit, the plain people again, 
not only In America but in the world, 
have paid less for their tin plate be- 
cause the Republican party put on a 



90 



GAINES. 



tax that every theorist knows must of 
necessity always raise the price. 

So She May Have More Lace. 

Mr. ANDERSON. The gentleman 
stated a few minutes ago that laces 
were a luxury. Am I to understand 
that the wife of a laboring- man or 
the children of laboring men are to 
wear plain clothes, and not have their 
clothes trimmed with laces of any 
kind? 

Mr. GAINES. Now I will answer 
that question. We do not say that 
the wife of a laboring man should 
have no lace on her clothes. We want 
to continue the policy of Protection so 
that she may have more lace than she 
otherwise would have. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] 

The evidence before the Ways and 
Means Committee shows that labor is 
paid in this country from two to four 
times as much as siinilar labor is paid 
In England and from six to fifteen 
times as mucli as similar labor is 
paid in Asiatic countries. 

Wages in Japan. 

Heretofore we have compared our 
wages to those paid in Europe. We 
must from this - time forward reckon 
with the Asiatic factor in the equa- 
tion. Japan has already roused and 
China Is awakening. The oriental 
workingman Is adaptable and indus- 
trious. His wages bear no compari- 
son to American wages. 

They never can. He has not the 
land and the resources to permit the 
payment of such wages as the Ameri- 
car workman can receive if he is not 
subjected to the competition of un- 
American conditions. 

The official figures furnished the 
Ways and Means Committee by the 
Government show that in Japan, the 
most progressive part of Asia, the fol- 
lowing wages prevail: 

Bricklayers, 45 cents a day of 9 to 9^4 
hours. 

Carpenters, 50 cents a day of 9 to 91/3 
hours. 

Laborers, 35 cents a day of 9 hours. 

Painters, 45 cents a day of 91/2 hours. 

Plumbers, 35 cents a day of 9 hours. 

Stonecutters, 42 1^ cents a day of 9 
hours. 

Coal miners, 41 cents a day of 9 
hours. 

Coal-mine laborers, 28 cents a day of 
9 hours. 

Compositors, 45 cents a day of 7 
hours. 



Farm laborers, male, 19 cents a day of 
10 hours. 

Farm laborers, female, 10 Ms cents a 
day of 10 hours. 

Flint-bottle makers, 51 cents a day of 
9 hours. 

Horseshoers, 28 cents a day of 8 
hours. 

Blowers, Bessemer process, 32% cents 
a day of 10 hours. 

Sawyers in lumber mills, male, 30 
cents a day of 9 hours. 

Sawyers in lumber mills, female, 17% 
cents a day of 9 hours. 

I might multiply the list from the 
official figures which I have before 
me, procured for the Ways and Means 
Committee by the Government of the 
United States, to all sorts of occupa- 
tions, and the wages range the same. 
Incidentally, these people work seven 
days in the week. In the whole list 
in three-fourths of the occupations 
named the number of days' work was 
seven per week, and In almost every 
instance where the days per week are 
only six the hours' work per day are 
ten. I should roughly estimate the 
wages paid as from one-seventh to 
one-fifteenth of the wages paid in this 
country. 

Prosperity Under the Dingley Law. 

Mr. Chairman, we are about to su- 
persede the Dingley law; and it may 
not be out of place to pause In order 
to pay a slight tribute to that great 
measure of the Republican party. 
Gentlemen on the other side have ex- 
pressed a degree of surprise that we 
should have had a depression under 
that law and under Republican admin- 
istration most complimentary to both. 
Such a result could not have occa- 
sioned such comment if It had taken 
place under any Democratic measure 
or administration. 

In my opinion, necessary as new 
conditions make it to revise that law, 
it has been, with the sole exception 
possibly of the McKInley law, the most 
scientific Protective measure that we 
have ever had. Under the Dingley law 
the people of the country have en- 
joyed the years of their highest pros- 
perity, and during its whole existence 
a higher average of prosperity than 
they ever enjoyed before, and a 
higher average of prosperity than 
any other people on earth ever en- 
joyed in "the tide of time." [Long and 
continued applause on the Republican 
side.] 



STURGISS. HUBBARD. 



A Protective Policy Develops Nat- 
ural Resources and Makes a Na- 
tion Strong and Independent. 

From the Congressional Record of April 5, 
1909. 
GEORGE C. STURGISS, of West Vir- 
g-inia. I conceive that it is of the ut- 
most importance that a nation and 
people organized into a body politic 
that desires to maintain its independ- 
ent existence must be self-sustaining, 
capable of defending its soil and peo- 
ple from the aggressions of every oth- 
er nation, whether in the form of ac- 
tual physical war or in commercial 
warfare and rivalry. In order to 
acquire this actual independence and 
to maintain it, the material things 
that supply food, clothing-, shelter, 
weapons of warfare offensive and de- 
fensive, must be produced and pro- 
vided within the territory and juris- 
diction of the nation. Until all this 
has been done the nation exists only 
by the tolerance of other and more 
powerful and better equipped govern- 
ments. 

It therefore is the part of political 
wisdom, of patriotism, and the highest 
statesmanship to encourage the de- 
velopment of all the resources and 
natural advantages that the nation 
possesses. Agriculture, mining, manu- 
factures, shipbuilding, commerce, bank- 
ing, and diversified occupations and 
employments should all be encour- 
aged and stimulated, until the nation, 
like a well-trained athlete, should be 
systematically and symmetrically de- 
veloped and fit to meet all comers, to 
suppress insurrection and rebellion 
and repel invasion. 

If a nation were composed of tillers 
of the soil only, or of artisans and 
manufacturers alone, or of merchants 
and traders, or of miners, or woods- 
men and shipbuilders and sailors alone. 
It would be at the mercy and exist 
only at the sufferance of those nations 
that had a diversification of indus- 
tries, occupations, and resources, all 
well developed. 

The War. 

The policy of a Protective Tariff 
does undeniably develop the resources 
and increases the wealth and prosper- 
ity of a nation, making it independent 
commercially, financially, and politic- 
ally. It does give better wages and 



91 

happier conditions to its work people. 
No one familiar with the wages paid 
abroad in the mines, furnaces, mills, 
factories, and on the farms, whether 
in Europe, the Tropics, China, or Ja- 
pan, will contend for a moment that 
the American workman could live, or 
should be required to live, upon these 
starvation wages. 

The South Will Declare for Protection. 

I welcome with much gratification 
the breaking away from party allegi- 
ance of many enlightened and patri- 
otic members of the minority party, 
and especially among those who come 
from the Southern States. I believe 
the time Is coming rapidly when 
emancipated from the thraldom* of 
party allegiance, the South will de- 
clare for a Protective policy, and so 
continue long after New England may 
have declared for Free-Trade. 

It will be better for the country 
when industrial and economic and not 
sectional questions divide the great 
parties of the country, and I hope to 
live to see the day. when greater pros- 
peritj'. greater wealth, and greater 
material development and advantage 
shall come to the South in common 
with all other sections of the country 
and when, burying all differences 
growing out of the ancient policies of 
the past, we shall go forward to 
greater heights of prosperity and hap- 
piness under one economic policv one 
destiny, and one flag. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] 



A Protective Tariff Law the First 
Law Passed By An American 
Congress. 

From the Congressional Record of April 5, 
1909. 
WILLIAM P. HUBBARD, of West 
Virginia. The Tariff legislation of this 
country began almost as soon as the 
Nation began. On the 4th day of July 
1776, the political independence of this 
country was declared. As soon as the 
"more perfect union" was formed, the 
first Congress of that Union enacted 
as Its first statute one which pre- 
scribed the form of oath to be taken 
by the Members of Congress and 
others. 

After the Congress had prescribed 
that oath, and after its Members had 



02 



HUBBARD. CALDERHEAD. 



taken that oath upon themselves to 
support the Constitution, that Con- 
gress, in fulfillment of the obligation 
it had just taken upon itself, enacted 
as the second act of that Congress, on 
the 4th of July, 1789, an act which de- 
clared the commercial and economic 
independence of this country; for the 
preamble to that act declared the ne- 
cessity of levying duties on imports; 
first, for the support of the Govern- 
ment; second, for the discharge of the 
debts of the United States; and third, 
for the encouragement and Protection 
of manufactures. 

After the lapse of more than a cen- 
tury we are true to that faith of the 
fatl^ers. 

Perhaps every Member here desires 
some change in the bill. For one, I 
hope to see it made more Protective 
in several features. When it shall be 
so amended by a Republican Congress, 
an American Congress, and certified 
by the signatures of Mr. Sherman and 
Mr. Cannon, and vivified by the appro- 
val of William H. Taft, it will com- 
plete a cycle of one hundred and 
twenty years within which has rip- 
ened the fruit of that devotion to the 
rights and interests of our country 
which blossomed in that first Tariff 
bill, a bill verified by the names of 
Adams and Muhlenberg, and int"> which 
the breath of life was bfeathed by the 
word of George Washington. Infolded 
in the close embrace of that bill of 
long ago was our material greatness 
of to-day. 

Of earth's first clay they did the last 

man knead. 
And there of the last harvest sowed the 
seed, 
And the first morning of creation 
wrote , „ 

What the last dawn of reckoning shall 
read. 



Protection Valuable Alike for the 
Farmer and Wage Earner. 

Froin ihc Congressional Record of April S, 
iQog. 
WIIXTAM A. CALDERHEAD, of 
Kansas. For fifteen days we have 
listened to the general charge that 
the Tariff was levied for the purpose 
of being a burden on the consumer. 
There has not been an intimation that 
the Tariff at any tinu- is for the bene- 
fit of the producer. 



The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Clark], opening the discussion on that 
side of the House, cited the names of 
the authorities in the Nation who in- 
cluded the substance of all that could 
be said upon it. He named Alexander 
Hamilton's report and a number of 
others, and concluded with the report 
of Mr. Gallatin. Nothing that has been 
said upon the subject since Hamilton's 
report has added much to the knowl- 
edge of the people, or to the purpose 
for which the Protective Tariff is lev- 
ied. Here is a great Nation, now, 
of 90,000,000 people, occupying land 
stretching from sea to sea, a great 
agricultural land, to which the in- 
habitants might easily turn for their 
own sustenance, and Hamilton's report 
was for the purpose of advising the 
country of the necessity of diversify- 
ing the industries of the United 
States, that it might find employment 
for all its people and be independent 
of the producers of other nations. 

At this hour, Mr. Chairman, the 
question is the same that It was in 
his day. Ten millions of people are 
engaged as laborers upon farms; six 
and a half millions of people, speak- 
ing in round numbers, are engaged In 
labor in the manufactories; 1,800,000 
people are employed upon the rail- 
ways. All the vast army, of men who 
are not emploj'ed in agriculture are 
employed in producing some form of 
inanufactured goods or in the trans- 
portation of them. The charge is 
generally made that the whole Tariff 
is levied for the Protection of the 
manufacturer. The general answer to 
it is that the man who has received 
the most Protection from the Tariff 
has been the farmer upon his farm, 
and the wage-earner at his work and 
in his wages. Testimony to that ef- 
fect is set forth in the language of 
Mr. Tompkins, from North Carolina, 
before our committee* in which he tes- 
tified that fifteen years ago a cotton 
crop of 10,000,000 bales was worth 5 
cents a pound, before the establish- 
ment of manufactories, and brought 
$300,000,000; and now. since the estab- 
lishment of manufactories, that same 
crop of 10,000,000 bales brings to the 
South $600,000,000; and in addition to 
that, the discovery of the method of 
producing cotton-seed oil brings the 
South another $100,000,000. 

Men have been drawn from the 



CALDERHEAD. 



93 



farms to labor in their own factories, 
and the men who competed upon the 
farm merely for the production of cot- 
ton and the sale of it are competing 
upon the farm for the production and 
sale of the food which supports the 
factories, as well as supplies them 
with its cotton. The value of the 
farm products there is another hun- 
dred millions. 

Enormous Value of Domestic Commerce. 

Last year we produced upon the 
farms of America nearly eight thou- 
sand millions of dollars' worth. We 
sold abroad to other countries about 
one thousand millions of dollars' 
worth. Who bought the rest of it? 
Who had the money to buy it, and 
how did they get it? Last year the 
manufactured products of America 
were sixteen thousand and eight hun- 
dred millions of dollars, and we ex- 
ported about nine hundred million dol- 
lars of that. Who bought the rest of 
it, and who had the money to buy it? 
Twentj'-three thousand million dollars 
worth of commerce between the States 
and less than two thousand million 
dollars' worth of commerce between 
the United States and all the balance 
of the world! 

The commerce between the States of 
our country is greater than all the 
commerce of Europe, Asia, and Africa 
with all the world. Who buys our 
commerce, and who has the money to 
buy it? We have lived for ten years 
under a Tariff legislation that is de- 
nounced as partisan, as class legisla- 
tion, as legislation for privileged 
wealth. Where did the monty come 
from that bought sixteen thousand 
millions of dollars' worth of manufac- 
tured products and seven thousand 
millions of dollars' worth from the 
farms? Who paid for it? It is not worth 
while now to enter into a discussion 
of the schedules which this committee 
has been preparing for the next Tariff. 
It is hardly worth while to attempt to 
answer charges that have been made 
against the Chicago platform. It is 
enough for us that for months the 
committee has been listening to the 
testimony of men engaged In every 
line of business. More statistics and 
more data have been collected for the 
preparation of this bill than for all of 
the other bills within the last forty 



years. In a few hours, I think, the bill 
will be laid before you for discussion, 
section by section. 

Every Consumer Is a Producer. 

As you read it it will be evident to 
you that it has not been made for the 
purpose of enriching one man at the 
expense of another, and it will be no 
reply to say that it is a tax levied 
upon the poor or upon the consumer. 
There is no consumer unless he is also 
a producer, and the man in America 
who is not a producer can not be a 
consumer of any value either to the 
Nation or to its productions from the 
farm or from the factory. The Tariff 
legislation that is proposed now does 
not differ from the Tariff legislation 
proposed by Hamilton, from that pro- 
posed and carried into effect by Mc- 
Kinley, nor from that proposed and 
carried into effect and operation by 
Dingley. You can not turn a page of 
the national life during the operation 
of the Dingley bill that does not show 
that the Nation was richer by a thou- 
sand millions of dollars at the end of 
every year. There were years when 
the Nation was richer at every sun- 
down by a million of dollars. There 
were years when the Nation was richer 
by a thousand millions of dollars every 
thirty days. 

Mr. SISSON. Has not the condition 
the gentleman speaks of been occa- 
sioned by reason of the fact that New 
England has had from 45 to 90 per 
cent Protection upon all that she pro- 
duced and the South has had abso- 
lutely nothing? 

The South' s Free-Trade Traditions. 

Mr. CALDERHEAD. That is a ques- 
tion which is traditional in the South, 
and has occupied most of the hearth- 
stones and most of the hotel corners 
for the last eighty years. Why do you 
not get to work on your own account? 
[Laughter.] When you set up a gov- 
ernment of your own — I do not intend 
to accuse you of doing what was un- 
just — you intended to export cotton to 
England, and you provided in your 
constitution that no import duty should 
ever be laid upon any manufactured 
goods coming into your country. 

5rou stood by your traditions then, 
and you are still standing by them. 
You are living by them. A tradition iy 



04 



CALDERHEAD. CUSHMAN. 



a healthy thing for a people, and no 
nation lives long that does not rever- 
ence its fathers and its mothers; but 
it is time for the children of a rich 
land to take their traditions in hand 
.and go to the fields of toil and begin 
to produce and manufacture for them- 
selves. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] 

For the Farmer and the Mill Hand Alike. 

I wish to remind my Republican 
friends that it is not a question 
Avhether hides come in free or subject 
to a duty, of whether lumber comes in 
free or subject to a duty. Personally 
I know that they ought both to be 
Protected, for the Tariff is for Pro- 
tection to the laborer in the lumber 
mills, and there has been no evidence 
found in four years that there is a 
lumber trust which combines the lum- 
ber mill and the manufacturer. [Ap- 
plause.] 

I believe there ought to be a Tariff 
on hides, for it is an industry which 
the farmer and the herd owner from 
the Missouri to the Rocky Mountains 
furnish to the market. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] I do not believe 
that the shoe factories of New Eng- 
land or anywhere else need that 15 per 
cent. It is not a question of whether 
either of those things comes the way 
we want it; but it is a question of 
whether the legislation in which we 
belieA^e, the legislation which is con- 
sistent with the life of the laborer of 
the Nation, the legislation which 
stands like a wall around the laborers 
of America to Protect them from the 
competition of the poorly paid labor- 
ers of other nations [applause on the 
Republican side] shall be maintained 
and passed as a law or shall be de- 
feated because some little petty item 
does not suit you and me. [Applause 
on the Republican side.] 

A Glance At the Future. 

And for it all there are many years 
to come. No nation has ever yet been 
born and started on its career with a 
purpose to die. A hundred million 
people in our brief life: in another 
century 300.,000.000; in another five 
centuries who shall number the multi- 
tudes that stand upon our land, all of 
them rejoicing in lliat nobler spirit of 
life, in nobler notion of life, jn the 



higher standard of faith and hope, 
and that if all around them some kind 
of clouds come to disturb the air, and 
threats upon one side and answers 
upon the other side make the founda- 
tions of the Nation tremble, then I 
know that in that far-ofE day, just as 
in the day of the fragment of the gen- 
eration to which I belong, when duty 
calls, liberty's sons will come answer- 
ing from every hill and valley, sing- 
ing the same song that we sung: 

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's 
early light. 

« * Xc « « DC 

Oh, say, does that Star-Spangled Ban- 
ner still w^ave 

O'er the land of the free and the home 
«* the brave? 



The Least Enthusiastic Over the 
Programme. 

Fr-B"* the Congressional Record of April 5, 
1909. 
FRANK W. CUSHMAN, of Wash- 
ington. Mr. Speaker, a quarter of a 
century ago I lived in the then Terri- 
tory of Wyoming. Those were the days 
of which Eugene Field sang — 

When money flowed like likker, 'nd the 
folks wuz brave 'nd true. 

The enterprising citizens of those 
daj's and that region had a w^ay of 
expediting justice that was mighty 
swift; they frequently hung a man 
first, and made up the court record 
afterwards. [Laughter.] 

There was a certain old settler in 
that region whose front name in his 
lifetime was "Bill," although I do not 
now recall that there is any name on 
his tombstone. 

Bill was engaged in the business of 
raising cattle, and he prospered mar- 
velously. The only cow brute he had 
on earth in the beginning was one 
old brindle steer. But he turned that 
old steer out on the range in the fall, 
and the next spring he branded a 
thousand head of calves as the natural 
increase. [Great laughter and ap- 
plause.] 

Yes; Bill was prospering, and all 
went merry as a marriage bell until 
one night — one dark night — a vigi- 
lance committee called on Bill without 
the formality of an engraved invita- 
tion. 

Tliey called old Bill out of the cabin 
and put g, noose aroiind lijs n«^ck With 



CUSHMAX. FORDNEY. 



a facility made perfect b^' long- prac- 
tice [laugliter], and the leader then 
said to him: 

"Bill, we are going to hang- you; 
what have you got to say about it?" 

Old Bill rolled his quid into the 
other cheek and said: 

"Well, gentlemen. I s'pose I've got 
more interest in this performance than 
ary other gent present, but I am the 
least enthusiastic over the pro- 
gramme." 

[Great laughter.] 

Now, Mr. Speaker, that describes ex- 
actly my feelings in this present situ- 
ation. [Renewed laughter.] 

When I look around over this polite 
political vigilance committee gathered 
together in this Hall, I think I realize 
that you are about to confiscate my 
luinber industry and at the same time 
lead me to the political scaffold. Per- 
mit me, as my farewell message, to 
say to you, that — 

"I have more interest in this per- 
formance than ary other gent present, 
but I am the least enthusiastic over 
the programme." 

[Great laughter.] 

The Cheap Lumber Delusion. 

A great many men on this floor who 
come from prairie States hug to their 
breasts the delusion that they can get 
cheap lumber for their communities, 
and that the price of agricultural 
products will still remain high. Do 
not think it for a minute! 

If you smite the lumber business of 
the United States, the recoil of that 
blow will stagger every interest that 
you think you are representing when 
you vote for free lumber. 

Let me give you in about a dozen 
words a word picture of the size of 
the lumber industrj' — as I know it to 
be: 

In my own State of Washington the 
lumber business is enormous. We 
have in that State 1,309 sawmills, em- 
ploying 110,000 men. We pay out 
every year in wages to those men the 
enormous sum of $75,000,000. The 
total capital invested in saw^mills and 
machinery in the State of Washington 
(not including standing timber or log- 
ging roads or l\*mber vessels) is the 
stupendous sum of $160,000,000. 

In the entire United States, the fig- 
ures showing the total of the lumber 
business are still more astounding. In 



the United States there is over $600,- 
000,000 invested in the sawmill indus- 
try. There are employed in the Unit- 
ed States in the lumber industry over 
800,000 men, with an annual pay roll 
to labor of $200,000,000. There are 
28,000 sawmills in the United States, 
scattered from ocean to ocean. 

When you think you can strike down 
the lumber industry of this Nation 
without any serious consequence, I bid 
you think of those 800,000 laboring 
men scattered throughout the length 
and breadth of this land — and if they 
can not have work, they will not have 
bread. [Loud applause.] 



"You Are Not Good Protectionists." 

From the Congressional Record of April 5, 
1909. 

JOSEPH W. FORDNEY, of Michigan. 
I want to say to the gentlemen on 
this side of the House who have been 
for several days demanding that cer- 
tain provisions should be put into 
this rule before they would vote for 
it — I say to you, gentlemen, some of 
you from the State of Minnesota, and 
Iowa, and from Kansas, that you are 
not good Republicans. [Laughter.] 
You are not good Protectionists. [Ap- 
plause.] You are demanding Protec- 
tion for an industry directly in your 
representative district, and demanding 
Free-Trade on the products of another 
State, your neighbor. 

Ah, gentlemen, the man who will de- 
mand Free-Trade on his raw material 
that is his neighbor's finished product, 
and ask Protection on his own finished 
product, is a statesman in the great 
structure of American politics about 
the size of a 2 by 4, the smallest tim- 
ber in the structure. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] That is your 
size, no matter who you are. You de- 
mand Protection to barley. One gen- 
tleman from the State of Minnesota 
said he could not vote for a rule that 
did not give more duty on barley than 
15 cents per bushel. There was pro- 
duced in that great State last year but 
172,000 bushels of barley, about $75,000 
or $100,000 worth. He is demanding 
more Protection to barley, but he 
wants Free-Trade on that great and 
magnificent industry, the lumber In- 
dustry, which amounts in volume to 



90 



PAYNE. 



nearly $800,000,000. [Applause on the 
Republican side.] 

Measure your patriotism, figure it 
out yourselves, whatever it may be. 
and you will find in the arena of 
American politics you are not larger 
than a fly speck on the map of the 
world. [Applause.] Gentlemen, the 
country is demanding prompt action 
on this Tariff bill, so that the business 
world may go forward, and I am gen- 
erous enough to say that I will submit 
my case to the Members of this House 
and to the people of the country and 
show my patriotism in my desire to 
enact this Tariff bill into law at the 
earliest possible moment. [Applause 
on the Republican side.] 



Needed Increase of Duties On Hos- 
iery and Qloves. 

From the Congressional Record of April 5, 6, 
1909. 

SERENO E. PAYNE, of New York. 
We can not satisfy every interest. The 
gentleman complains of hosiery; and I 
want to say to you gentlemen on this 
side, that there Is not a single Pro- 
tected item in this bill that is better 
justified than the Increase of duty on 
hosiery put into this bill. [Applause 
on the Republican side.] 

They complain of gloves. Yet it is 
precisely the case that we had in tin 
plate tvyenty years ago, when we fol- 
lowed the leadership of William Mc- 
Kinley and created that magnificent 
industry employing 25,000 of our peo- 
ple; and twelve year.s ago, under the 
leadership of Mr. Dingley, when we 
imposed the duties on men's gloves. 
We were making about 5 per cent, 
and to-day we are making 90 per cent 
of men's gloves. [Applause on the 
Republican side.] And they are muc^ 
clieaper than they were when we put 
the duty on them. It is as fine a vin- 
dication of the idea of Protection as 
wa.s the duty on tin plate. 

Now, men tliat make men's gloves 
can make women's gloves; and with 
the same measure of Protection that 
we put on men's gloves we come be- 
fore you to-day with a bill to put a 
duty on women's gloves; and when we 
shall employ 50,000 of our people In 
making women's gloves for American 
women to wear, they will be sold as 
cheaply and cheaper than they are to- 



day; and the American workmanship 
will make better gloves than the 
women are wearing to-day. [Applause 
on the Republican side.] 

Hundreds of Petitions Received. 

It is stated that the cheapest of 
stockings are sold at 25 cents a pair. 
Why a difference of 2 cents in duty 
should double the price is difficult for 
any one, except the manager of a de- 
partment store, to understand. The 
simple fact is that this 2 cents would 
come out of the retailer's profit, which 
very frequently equals 100 per cent of 
tlie cost of his goods. No advance 
could be made in the rate to the 
woman who buys the stockings. 

Notwithstanding, because of the ar- 
ticles repeated in the various dailies, 
which has had the effect of rousing 
many women and many hysterical men 
into the belief that an outrage or 
wrong had been done, very few letters 
from either men or women have been 
received by the Committee protesting 
against this raise of duty, except such 
as have been inclosed in envelopes 
bearing the imprint of Marshall Field 
& Co., while on the other hand, scores 
of petitions have been received, many 
of them signed by hundreds of per- 
sons, asking that this duty might re- 
main in order that the w^orking people 
of our own country might make stock- 
ings for our wives and children. 

Plain Facts as to Gloves. 

As to the increased duty on gloves. 
The simple facts are these: In 1897 
manufacturers appeared before the 
committee asking that the duty of $4 
per dozen on men's gloves under the 
Wilson bill be retained. Prior to 1894 
they were making 5 or 10 per cent of 
the men's gloves, but they said the 
duty was so low they were being 
driven out of business, and statistics 
seemed to back up their assertion. 
They demonstrated that to meet the 
difference in cost and labor a duty of 
$4 per dozen was necessary upon men's 
gloves, or 33 1-3 cents per pair. After 
consideration the committee inserted 
such a paragraph in the bill and it 
became a law. To-day they demon- 
strate to us that they are making over 
90 per cent of the men's gloves worn 
in this country, having amply re- 
deemed their promise, and that tlie 



PAYNE. HAMLIN. PU.TO. 



07 



cost to the consumer I.s much less than 
It was prior to 1897. 

They came before the committee 
early in the hearings and proved to 
us that it cost no more and required 
no more skill to make a woman's 
glove than a man's, and claimed that 
if the same rate of duty was given 
them, in time they would make the 
same percentage of women's gloves, 
and that this industrj'- would employ 
at least 50,000 people. The committee 
looked into the matter carefully and 
found this state of things to exist. 

Women's Gloves. 

Of late years there has come into 
fashion gloves much more than 14 
inches in length, a length that was 
unknown at the time the Dingley law 
was passed, such gloves reaching al- 
most up to the shoulder. This long 
glove is purely a matter of luxury, 
and the committee were asked to add 
50 cents a dozen pair for each addi- 
tional inch in length over 14 inches. 
They added 35 cents. Is there any 
reason why, in hunting around for rev- 
enue, we should not have levied this 
additional duty upon these luxurious 
gloves? 

Then came the question of whether 
we wanted to encourage the industry 
of making women's gloves in this 
country. To do this required a duty 
of $4 per dozen pairs on gloves not 
exceeding 14 inches in length. Other 
than the Schmaschen glove, this made 
an additional duty of $1.50 a dozen 
pairs, or 12 1^ cents per pair on one 
grade and $1 a dozen or 8^^ cents per 
pair upon another. Having satisfied 
themselves that this was a fair rate 
of duty which must be maintained in 
order to take over the industry, the 
committee did just what every Pro- 
tectionist would do and put $4 per 
dozen pairs upon these gloves. 

The Tinplate Peddler Lies. 

Most Members of the House will re- 
member then the hue and cry that was 
raised and the lies that were told 
about the advanced price, the trick of 
the tin peddler going about just before 
election with his load of tin, asking 
three or four prices for it and blaming 
it all upon the McKinley law. and the 
grand result in vindication of the pol- 
icy which our Democratic friends said 



would never succeed in transferring 
this splendid industry to the United 
States. The time is passed when the 
American public is to be deceived by 
wholesale falsehood. The people are 
too intent on furnishing labor for 
everyone, knowing the splendid re- 
sults that have always come from a 
Protective Tariff. The belief in the 
principle is too universal for any shop- 
keeper to encourage the Importation of 
cheap and inferior goods in order that 
he may get a cent or two more of 
profit rather than to employ the high- 
est priced and intelligent labor of the 
American citizen. 



A Missouri Democrat's Free-Trade 
View. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 
COURTNEY W. HAMLIN, of Mis- 
souri. I want to submit this further 
proposition: I do not believe in a 
Protective Tariff for Protection's sake, 
and I do not believe it can be sus- 
tained by any kind of logic that I 
have ever heard or that can be pro- 
duced on the face of the earth. [Re- 
newed applause.] 



A Louisiana Democrat's Protection 
View. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 

ARSENE P. PUJO, of Louisiana. In 
a spirit of fairness to the membership 
of this House, and in order that my 
position may be thoroughly under- 
stood, I want to say in advance that I 
am not a Free-Trader. And I want to 
say further that I believe that a 
Tariff should be levied upon imports 
which will not only produce a revenue 
sufficient to defray the expenses -^^ 
Government and provid*^ " 
proper internal '^ 
that due rega 
equities of c 
States. 

Mr. Chairman, ..le at- 

tempted reductif - xariff on lum- 

ber will be vioiuuive of all principles 
of justice and equity to the laborer, to 
the manufacturer, and to the man who 
uses the commodity last — the con- 
sumer. Should this bill be enacted 



98 



PUJO. FISH. HAMMOND. 



into law, its operation upon the saw- 
mill man will be, in part, as follows: 
His lumber and shingles mvist be upon 
the free list, and nearly everything he 
has to buy Is Protected. 

Mr. HOWLAND. I understand you 
Insist on Protection. Against whom 
do you desire to be Protected? 

Mr. PUJO. I am insisting upon a 
duty against the lumber from Canada, 
where labor Is cheaper, and because It 
is cheaper the people of the North 
who have grown rich, and whose for- 
ests are now denuded, are actuated by 
selfish motives and desire the timber 
of the South placed in competition 
with free Canadian lumber, so that 
they may buy the Canadian lumber 
cheaper than they can buy the lumber 
of the South. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe the present 
duty on wool and its manufactures to 
be a revenue-producing one, for, in 
1907, the revenue from that source ex- 
ceeded some $3,700,000. Hence, a Dem- 
ocrat who believes in a Tariff for reve- 
nue only ought to find no embarrass- 
ment in voting for the maintenance of 
the Dingley schedules on lumber. 

My views on the question of the im- 
position of a Tariff rate are that the 
representatives of the people owe it 
to them to so legislate that no citizens 
of a foreign country shall be permit- 
ted to offer for sale in this country any 
competitive article under conditions 
more favorable than is employed by an 
American citizen. 



The Fathers of Our Country Favored 
a Protective Tariff. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 

HAMILTON PISH, of New York. The 
fathers of our country favored a Pro- 
tective Tariff, and the greatest minds 
of both parties have advocated it, as 
did Missouri's greatest son, Thomas H. 
Benton, who has been referred to in 
(Ills debate, and who stood in the Sen- 
ate in favor of Protection to the prod- 
ucts of his State. Silas Wright and 
James Buchanan di*!*! likewise, as well 
as many other leadin^^ Democrats, and 
yet we have iieard men of the same 
faith in this House denounced for fol- 
lowing in their footsteps. 

In fifty years the Democratic party 
has had but one man, Grover Cleve- 



land, who w^ill go down into history as 
one of the great statesmen of the 
country. He has been far more criti- 
cised and denounced by liis own party 
than by his opponents. He made an 
earnest and honorable attempt to 
carry out the pledges of his party. 

How beset he was with diflSculties, 
and how the Sugar Trust succeeded in 
gaining control of the Wilson Tariff 
bill is shown by the extracts below 
from Chairman Wilson's speech and 
the letter from President Cleveland to 
Chairman Wilson under date of July 
2, 1894. 

Let us speedily enact the Tariff bill, 
and thereby produce revenue, equalize 
duties, and encourage the industries of 
the United States, so that we may en- 
ter anew upon a field of unbounded 
prosperity, and in these days of uni- 
versal good will, with the last vestige 
of sectionalisin happily vanished, af- 
ford the broad-minded and splendidly 
equipped President of the United 
States an opportunity to develop his 
progressive policies, which are to re- 
dound to the welfare of the whole 
people. 



A Democratic Plea for Adequate Pro- 
tection on Barley. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 

WINFIELD S. HAMMOND, of Min- 
nesota. The placing of hides upon the 
free list and leaving a duty upon boots 
and shoes will benefit only the manu- 
facturers of boots and shoes. It will 
decrease the revenue of the country 
and furnish another instance of a 
Tariff for the benefit of the few at the 
expense of the many. 

Then the duty on barley, which has 
been 30 cents a bushel since the act of 
1890, by this bill is to be reduced to 15 
cents a bushel. It is interesting- to 
learn from the published hearings be- 
fore the Ways and Means Committee 
from whom the demand for a reduc- 
tion of this duty comes. The great 
barley-producing States of the Union 
are Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, and California, 
and while some barley is used for 
feed, nearly all of it is converted into 
barley malt for the brewers. In 
Western New York there are a number 
of maltsters, and, because their plants 



HAMMOND. POU. CUSHMAN. 



are at a distance from the barley-pro- 
ducing- areas, tliey are obliged to pay 
heavy transportation charges on the 
barley they manufacture. It seems 
that the land near their establishments 
will not produce so good a grade of 
barley as is raised in the West, but 
across the line, in Canada, the farmers 
can raise a most excellent product. 

Now, the persons who desire the bar- 
ley rate reduced and upon whose state- 
ments the Ways and Means Commit- 
tee has acted in making- the, reduction, 
are these New York maltsters. There 
Is no claim that the reduction of the 
duty will give to the country a greater 
revenue, so this reduction has not been 
made for revenue purposes. We have 
been told time and time again that 
the purpose of Tariff legislation is to 
furnish, first, Protection to our own 
Industries, and incidently to provide a 
sufficient revenue for the needs of gov- 
ernment. This reduction is not a rev- 
enue measure. Then it must be de- 
fended upon the ground that it Pro- 
tects our American industries. How 
does it Protect thein? These New 
York maltsters say that'if the Tariff is 
reduced on barley, then the Canadian 
farmers near the New Y''ork line will 
raise barley and ship it into this 
country where it will be made into 
barley malt. This, then, might appro- 
priately be called a Tariff adjustment 
for the purpose of encourag-ing Ca- 
nadian industries, instead of a Tariff 
for the purpose of encouraging Amer- 
ican industries. I can not vote to re- 
duce the duty upon barley to aid the 
farmers of Canada and half a dozen 
maltsters in western New York at the 
expense of the barley growers of the 
United States. 



cent. You have Protected the manu- 
facturers of metal with a 36.15 per 
cent duty; the earthenware and glass 
manufacturers with a 52.15 per cent 
duty; the manufacturers of chemicals 
with a 28 per cent duty; tobacco man- 
ufacturers with a duty of 104 per 
cent; agricultural products and pro- 
visions with a duty of 39.08 per cent; 
the manufacturers of spirits, wines, 
and so forth, with an average ad 
valorem duty of 74.92 per cent; and 
the manufacturers of cotton goods 
with a similar duty amounting- to 50.27 
per cent; but your bill only provides a 
duty of 5.92 per cent on sawed lumber, 
and now comes the g-entleman from 
Minnesota with an amendment which 
will put all lumber not dressed on the 
free list. 

Mr. Chairman, I can not support the 
proposition. [Applause.] I see no 
reason for this discrimination against 
the people of the South, who have pre- 
served their forests, and those who are 
engaged in the manufacture of lumber. 
I decline to support the amendment for 
several reasons. No Tariff bill which 
raises less than $325,000,000 will ade- 
quately meet the requirements of the 
Government. A great sum must be 
raised by levying duties on imports. 
The levying- of such duties must neces- 
sarily Protect somebody's business or 
interests, and I hold that the Protec- 
tion thus incidentally afforded should 
be equitably adjusted. No interest 
should be made the scapegoat of a bad 
measure. There is to my mind no rea- 
son why you should discriminate 
against the people of my section In 
favor of the woolgrowers of the Da- 
kotas or the sugar-beet growers of 
the West. 



A Southern Democrat who Wants 
Protection for the South. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 
EDWARD W. POU, of North Caro- 
lina. The effect of the amendment of- 
fered by the gentlemen from Minne- 
sota [Mr. Tawney] is to put all lum- 
ber not dressed on the free list. Now, 
the proposed bill to which I am op- 
posed is a high Protective measure. 
You have, for instance, Protected the 
woolgrowers of the Nation with an 
average ad valorem duty of 59 per 



The Wall of Protection Should 
Equally and Adequately Protect All 
Industries. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 

FRANK W. CUSHMAN, of Washing- 
ton. I say to you, my political breth- 
ren on this floor, that it will be a sad 
day for the Republican party when we 
start in to tear down the wall of Re- 
publican Protection In front of any 
legitimate American industry. [Ap- 
plause on the Republican side.] 

It may be another man's industry 



100 



CUSHMAN. BOUTELL. 



that is attacked to-day, but when you 
beg-in to tear down the temple of Pro- 
tection, sooner or later you will find 
your own industry engulfed in the 
common ruin. 

I am a consistent Protectionist. My 
Protectionism rises superior to my 
selfishness. I am willing to Protect 
the barley of Minnesota, and I ask 
similar Protection for the lumber of 
my own State. I am consistent. 

And I say that the man on this floor 
who wants to Protect his own little 
industry but is willing to see his 
neighbor's industry destroyed, is not 
a Protectionist; he is just a plain po- 
litical cannibal, willing to have his 
neighbor eaten up if he can be saved. 

Here is the eminent gentleman from 
Minnesota, who proclaims his Repub- 
licanism in the very moment when he 
is deserting the principles of that 
party. Sir, I am here to impugn the 
Republicanism of any man who wants 
a Tariff of nearly a dollar a grain on 
barley and who does not want a Tariff 
of a cent per thousand on lumber. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 

The only way the Republican party 
can be held together is by building a 
wall of Protection that shall equally 
and adequately Protect all the indus- 
tries of America. Do you think that 
on the great field of American enter- 
prise you can make lumber a commer- 
cial outlaw and not reap the reward 
of your political treachery? 

The Danger of Unfairness. 

Sir, when I was a child I read a 
story of the English war in India. Ac- 
cording to that tale certain of the na- 
tives of India had allied themselves 
with the English army. They were in 
Imminent danger of attack, and to- 
gether they threw up a hasty fortress 
for their joint protection from the 
common enemy without. But it was 
found that the fortress was too small 
to hold all, so the English drove their 
native allies out of the fortress they 
helped to build, expecting them to be 
slaughtered by the enemy. 

Do you know what those natives 
did? In a single instant they joined 
the enemy and turned their fire upon 
the Inhuman and ungodly crowd that 
had denied them shelter within the 
fortress they had helped to build, and 
they washed their hands in tlie blood 



of those who had sought to sacrifice 
them. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] 

You had better listen to that tale. 
When 3'ou difive a legitimate American 
industry outside the wall of Protection, 
thej' will help shoot you to death on 
the next American political battle- 
field. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] 



Reasons Cited Against Free-Trade in 
Lumber. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 
HENRY S. BOUTELL, of Illinois. 
It is very apparent from the evidence 
before the committee that the best in- 
terests of forest conservation would 
lead us to maintain at least a dollar 
rate on rough lumber so as to induce 
the lumbermen of the United States to 
clean up the cheaper lumber which 
otherwise they would not be induced 
to do. The third reason, and the one 
which I think ought to prevail, even 
if neither of the others addresses it- 
self to the judgment of the committee, 
is this: On both the north and the 
south of us we have in the British 
Dominion and in South America coun- 
tries that are ready to take advantage 
of us in replenishing their own treas- 
uries by an export tax on their raw 
products which we buy from them. 
Let me call the attention of the com- 
mittee to this remarkable situation. 
We import over 80,000,000 pounds a 
year of raw rubber. We pay about 
$60,000,000 a year for it. We boast 
that it is on the free list for the ben- 
efit of our rubber manufacturers, but 
every year, gentlemen, the American 
rubber manufacturers, who think they 
are getting free rubber, contribute to 
the treasuries of the States of Brazil 
over $12,000,000 a year in a 25 per cent 
ad valorem export tax. There is the 
same danger on the north, that every 
reduction which we make In lumber 
will be used by the Canadian or the 
Provincial governments to aid their 
own treasuries or their crown-land 
funds. So, for these three reasons, 
Mr. Cliairman, that we need the reve- 
nue; that it Is the interest of the con- 
servation of our forests; that It Is to 
prevent an export duty being placed 
by the Canadian government, I submit 



CLARK. FASSETT. RANSDELL. SWASEY. 



101 



Lo the calm and sober judgment of all 
the members of the committee that the 
rate fixed by the Ways and Means 
Committee should be sustained. [Loud 
applause.] 



A Southern Democrat Favors Full 
Protection for Lumber. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 
FRANK CLARK, of Florida. I am 
opposed to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Minne.sota [Mr. 
Tawney], and I go further than that, 
and saj' that I am in favor of a res- 
toration of the $2 per thousand rate 
contained in the Dingley bill. [Ap- 
plause.] If I can get an opportunity 
to vote, I shall certainly so record my- 
self. 



Those Who Talk for the Ultimate 
Consumer Must Not Forget the 
Primary Producer. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 

J. SLOAT FASSETT, of New York. I 
am opposed to this proposition for 
several reasons. The first reason is 
that I am for a high Protective Tariff 
[loud applause on the Republican 
side] pledged to Protect In every pos- 
sible way every legitimate American 
enterprise. 

The second reason I am opposed to 
the proposition is that it will disap- 
point every advocate of it in this room 
and in the country outside. 

The third reason is it will deprive 
us of a large item of important rev- 
enue, $1,700,000, annually and give us 
no substitute. 

The fourth reason is that no con- 
sumer of raw lumber anywhere in the 
United States will buj^ one foot of 
lumber one cent cheaper if this reso- 
lution passes. [Applause.] 

Mr. Chairman, I speak as a manu- 
facturer of lumber and owning large 
stumpage in Canada. For myself per- 
sonally I would be glad to see tlie 
Tariff reduced entirely. I would be 
glad to see absolute Free-Trade in 
every product of the forest. We can 
get, then, into the magnificent markets 
of America from across tlie border, 
and I could make my holdings wortli 



much more than they are now, [Ap- 
plause.] 

Who is pushing for this change? It 
Is those of us who are interested In 
Canadian enterprises and Canadian 
stumpage. We can well afford Free- 
Trade. You gentlemen in the lumber 
business can not afford it, and pur- 
chasers of lumber will not benefit. If 
you give me a $2 remission, I can get 
|2 farther into New York State and 
New England. You compromise on 
II 

Mr. TAWNEY. Will the gentleman 
yield for a question? 

Mr. FASSETT. Not at all. I can get 
$1 farther into New York State than 
I can now. and that Is where this com- 
mittee agreement is a compromise. 
But those gentlemen who talk for the 
benefit of the ultimate consumer must 
not forget the primary producer. No 
consumer has power to consume to the 
profit of the dealer beyond his power 
to earn; and if you solely consider 
the consumer here and destroy the 
earning power of the producer in 
America, you have spoiled your mar- 
ket and ruined your party, and you 
can not face the people on that issue 
and you ought not to want to do so. 



The South Claims a Fair Share of 
Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 
JOSEPH E. RANSDELL, of Louisi- 
ana. The voters of this country have 
said that the Republicans must frame 
this, bill and not the Democrats, and 
the Republicans are doing it. As one 
Representative of a great section of 
the country largely interested in the 
lumber industry, I wish to say that as 
the bill is being framed along Protec- 
tion lines, I think it very unjust for 
my section not to get its fair share of 
that Protection. [Applause.] 



Should Be Fair to Eastern Lumber- 
men. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909- 
JOHN P. SWASEY, of Maine. This 
great West of ours furnishes us corn 
and wheat and barley and beef, and all 
those products are being run into our 



102 



SWASEY. McGUIRE. PAYNE. MILLER. 



forests by the carload, train after 
train, and if we could have the privi- 
lege of going into the Canadian mar- 
ket and buying the products for car- 
rying on our lumbering operations 
over the Canadian line, we could af- 
ford to give up the $2 — yes, $4 — but 
when we pay you $1.20 for your wheat, 
11.10 for your corn, and from $400 to 
$600 for a pair of Kansas, Ohio, or Illi- 
nois horses, we are paying for all the 
privilege that we get by virtue of the 
Protection to that great industry of 
ours, and I trust that gentlemen will 
be fair with us and will give us a 
restoration of the Dingley Tariff. 



a Tariff on 



Oklahoma Pleads for 
Hides. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 

BIRD McGUIRE, of Oklahoma. It Is 
an easy matter just at this juncture, 
just at this particular period, to say 
that you are building up a trust, you 
are Protecting the packer. It does not 
make any difference to me whether 
the tanning industry is found on the 
one side or on the other. If it was 
said that the packers — if such is the 
case — are establishing tanneries, the 
tannery is worth jiist as much to the 
farmer, it is worth just as much to the 
laborer, it is worth just as much to the 
American people, whether it be estab- 
lished in the State of Missouri or the 
State of Massachusetts, in Michigan, or 
in any other State. It does not make 
any difference whether it is for the ex- 
clusive business of tanning or whether 
It is established in connection with 
some other business. 

It employs the same number of men, 
the same wages are paid, the same 
Protection is guaranteed to labor. 
Shall we stand here And say we are 
opposed to the duty on hides because 
It may contribute a few pennies to the 
packer while it at the same time con- 
tributes millions to the farmer? 



A Republican Who Considers a Duty 
on Hides Inexcusable. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 
SIOUENO E. PAYNE, of New York. 
There is no logical foimdatlon for a 



duty on hides; there is no justice in a 
duty on hides. It is not for the ben- 
efit of the farming interest, but it ben- 
efits only the great monopolies that 
control the packing industry of the 
United States, and so your farmer 
constituents will say to you gentlemen 
who vote for it when they discover 
that through your lack of wisdom or 
foresight you voted for this inexcusa- 
ble duty on hides. [Applause on the 
Republican side.] 



Justice for the Farmer Rather Than 
Added Profits for the Brewer. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 

JAMES M. MILLER, of Kansas. The 
amount of duty on barley heretofore 
has been 30 cents a bushel, and the 
Committee on Ways and Means have 
reported in favor of 15 cents duty. 
This amendment provides that the 
duty shall be 25 cents Instead of 15 
cents, and the reason I did not move 
to restore it to 30 cents was the fact 
that 30 cents is more than necessary 
for the Protection of barley in this 
country. I have talked with those in- 
terested especially in this product, and 
they admit that 25 cents a bushel Is 
sufficient Protection. I want to call 
attention of the committee to the rea- 
son why the amendment is offered. 

This is a product of the great States 
of Montana, the two Dakotas, Ne- 
braska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan. Wisconsin and Minnesota 
probably produce more barley than 
any other two States in the United 
States. 

Mr. TAWNEY. If the gentleman 
will pardon me, I want to say that the 
State of California produces mors bar- 
ley than any other State In the Union. 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. I will get 
to that point. The State of California 
is a great barley-producing State, but 
I am speaking of the barley that Is 
used for the purpose of manufacturing 
beer. I am speaking of this barley, 
and not of the kind raised in Cali- 
fornia, which Is a feed barley. I am 
speaking of a barley produced by the 
great Stales that I have named — ^Min- 
nesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, 
North and South Dakota, Nebraska, 
Wyoming, and Kansas, 



MILLER. STIi]ENERSON. 



103 



Mr. SLAYDEN. What Is barley used 
for principally? 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. Barley Is 
used principally for n-iaking beer. 

Mr. SLAYDEN. Malt to be used for 
making beer? 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. Yes. 

Mr. SLAYDEN. Then, how In the 
world does It concern Kansas? 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. I will tell 
you how it concerns Kansas. Kansas 
is one of the greatest producing States 
in this country. It is an agricultural 
State, and it raises barley. It asks 
that it shall be Protected on this prod- 
uct the same as on other products 
of the farm. 

I wovild like to have some gentleman 
on the Ways and Means Committee or 
some Member of this House give some 
reason why the duty on barley should 
be cut down and the duty on wheat 
and on rye and on corn and on other 
farm products of the Western States 
should remain as it is. There can be 
but one reason why It is done, and 
that is the reason that people inter- 
ested — brewers probably more than 
anj'^ other people in this country — 
want it cut down. I stand here this 
afternoon for the purpose of Protect- 
ing the farmers of this country and 
seeing that they get justice rather 
than that the brewers shall have 
added profits to the business in which 
they are engaged. 



Potection Against Cheaper Barley 
from Canada. 

From the Congressional Record of April 6, 
1909. 
HALVOR STEENERSON, of Minne- 
sota. Mr. Chairman, I represent a 
State that produces more barley than 
any other State in the Union. My dis- 
trict probably produces more barley 
than any other district in the State of 
Minnesota. I ask that this amend- 
ment be adopted for the reason that it 
relates to one of the few items in this 
bill that affords genuine Protection to 
the farmer. We produced last year in 
the State of Minnesota 32,500,000 bush- 
els of barley — one-fifth of the total 
product of the whole United States — 
and of that more than 6,000,000 bush- 
els was produced in my district. My 
district adjoins the Canadian border, 



where they produce barley, and we 
know that this duty is for the benefit 
of the farmer; we know that it en- 
hances the price of the farmer's prod- 
uct. 

IVIr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentle- 
man state the difference between the 
price in Minnesota and Canada? 

Mr. STEENERSON. I can state that 
a year ago last fall, in 1907, there was 
paid duty on barley from Manitoba to 
the amount of over $5,000 in one cargo. 
Canada got 30 cents less in that in- 
stance, but the difference runs perhaps 
15 to 20 cents per bushel. 

Mr. HUMPHREY, of Washington. Is 
farm labor any higher over in Mani- 
toba or across the line in Canada than 
in your district? 

Mr. STEENERSON. The cost of 
production is higher for the reason 
that it costs more to deliver the barley 
in the Eastern nnarket than from 
eastern Canada, that is, from the State 
of Minnesota, and that is an item In 
the cost of production. Now, the legis- 
lature of the State of Minnesota has 
unanimously passed a resolution In 
favor of this duty, basing it upon the 
theory that the farmers are con- 
tributing in everything else to the 
support of Protection prices, and that 
this is one of the items which is of 
genuine benefit to them. 

Why Minnesota Farmers Need Protect/on. 

The situation on the border of north- 
ern Minnesota is especially important. 
We are engaged, especially in the 
frontier section, in the raising of 
wheat. We have not got far enough 
advanced to go into stock raising, and 
it is necessary to alternate and rotate 
the crop. The wheat exhausts the soil 
very rapidly, and we have to put in 
barley or let the land go fallow, and 
barley, being a profitable crop, gives 
us an opportunity to use the land 
every year. We can see no reason why 
the Canadian, who contributes noth- 
ing to the support of the army or the 
navy, who is not a taxpayer and does 
not bear the burden of our heavy 
prices under our Tariff system, should 
have the same benefit, or practically 
the same benefit, given to our own 
people, who support the Government. 
This is no higher Protection than is 
afforded upon all other farm products. 
The dvity on wheat is 25 cents a bushel, 



104* 



STEENERSON. 



and oats and all the products of the 
farm throughout the United States are 
given Protection under present sched- 
ules. 

Has Stimulated Production. 

The result of this Tariff has been to 
stimulate production. Ten years ago 
Minnesota only produced 9,000,000 
bushels, whereas we produced thirty- 
two and a half million bushels last 
year. In 1897, when we had no duty, 
we produced in the United States only 
66,000,000 bushels, whereas in 1906 we 
produced 178,000,000 bushels, showing 
that this duty does tend to stimulate 
production and to bring returns to the 
farmer, who bears the largest share of 
the burdens in the payment of Tariff 
duties, because they consume more 
than any other class of people. Now, 
in behalf of the people of my district, 
who are vitally interested in this, who 
produce, perhaps, 6,000,000 bushels of 
barley every year, I say to you if you 
leave this duty at 15 cents a bushel 
it will practically ruin the barley pro- 
duction of that district and of the 
whole country; and having supported 
this Committee on Ways and Means in 
all the other items, it seems to me you 
ought not to single out the one subject 
of barley and discriminate against the 
farmers in this way. [Applause.] 

Protection Justified. 

There is no object which so com- 
pletely justifies the policy of Protec- 
tion as this. In 1896. before the enact- 
ment of the Dinglej' law, we only pro- 
duced 66,000,000 bushels, whereas in 
1906 we produced 178,000,000 bushels, 
an increase of nearly 300 per cent. 
The average farm price in 1896 was 
only 32 cents per bushel, whereas the 
average farm price in 1907 was 66 
cents, and last year about 55 cents. 
The reason for this increase in price 
was the establishment of a good home 
market. Since 1897 the malting- in- 
dustry has grown immensely, so that 
now the center of it is west of Buffalo 
— in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Min- 
neapolis. Formerly the export price 
fixed the domestic price, but not so 
during tlie last few years, for the es- 
tablishment of the malting industry in 
the West has created a home demand 
and a home market suflflclent to con- 
trol the price. 



Who is it that is responsible for this 
cut in the barley duty? We are re- 
liably informed that it all comes from 
a desire of the eastern malting inter- 
ests — principally those in Buffalo — not 
to get cheaper barley, but to get an 
undue advantage over their western 
competitors. They can get their barley 
from Ontario cheaper than Chicago or 
Milwaukee can from Kansas, Iowa, 
southern Minnesota, or South Dakota, 
and they will thus be able to dominate 
the malt market and to destroy that 
Industry in the West. This demand 
for a reduced duty does not come from 
the consuiner, but from maltsters of 
the East, who only produced 14,000,000 
bushels of malt last year, as against 
56,000,000 bushels produced by the 
maltsters west of Buffalo. 

Would Destroy the Domestic Market. 

Is it fair and just to destroy this 
great home market west of Buffalo 
and thereby entailing a loss of millions 
upon the farmers of the West? The 
maltsters of Buffalo can continue to 
get their barley by way of the Great 
Lakes from Duluth, Superior, and 
other lake ports at a freight rate of 
2^2 cents per bushel, a rate even 
lower than that enjoyed by Chicago. 

The wheat farmer gets very little 
benefit out of the duty on wheat, for, 
owing to the large proportion of that 
crop exported, the price in the do- 
mestic market is largely, if not en- 
tirely, 'controlled by the price abroad; 
but just now, when we have reached a 
point where this is not true of barley, 
you propose by cutting the duty in two 
to destroy the domestic market in the 
West and compel us to abandon barley 
production, which has grown up on 
the faith of the present Tariff to such 
great proportions. 

You will benefit no one in this coun- 
try by this course, but you will injure 
many. We in the West have stood by 
the Republican party and its policy of 
Protection believing it would be ap- 
plied fairly and justly to the whole 
country alike and would develop every 
section and brirg pro.sperily to all, and 
we appeal to you, in the name of the 
millions of farmers of the West, not 
to perpetrate this injustice upon us 
now, but to treat us fairly and give us 
tfiat measure of Protection whicli is 
our due. 



HAMILTON. 



105 



Protection Becomes a Question of 
Patriotism. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 

J90Q. 

EDWARD L. HAMILTON, or Michi- 
gan. In considering this question, I 
have prepared a statement of facts, the 
truth of which, I believe, everybody 
will admit, and from these facts, as 
premises, I propose to draw certain 
conclusions. 

First. We must raise money to 
run the Government, and the Tariff 
furnishes the least burdensome 
method. 

Second. We live in a Tariff world, 
in which other nations, except Eng- 
land, Protect their markets. The mil- 
lennium has not yet arrived. 

Third. We live in a world of indus- 
trial centralization, created by im- 
proved methods of transportation and 
communication. 

Fourth. We live in a world of cor- 
porations, in which corporate combina- 
tions exist alike under Free-Trade and 
Protection, in republics and in mon- 
archies, and the further the nations of 
the earth have advanced commercially 
the more their industries have become 
centralized. 

Fifth. The further nations are ad- 
vanced commercially the more their 
labor is organized, but nowhere are 
the wages of labor as high as they are 
in America. 

Sixth. We have here in America a 
domestic commerce along our own 
coasts and upon our own rivers, lakes, 
and railroads, amounting to more than 
$25,000,000,000, which is more than 
twice the international commerce of 
all the world, and of that international 
commerce we sell about one-eighth 
and buy about one-ninth. 

Seventh. Our ninety million popula- 
tion market, being the best market In 
the world, we should not give it away 
by Free-Trade or exchange it by reci- 
procity for any other lesser market 
unless the best Interests of the whole 
people will be conserved thereby. 

Eighth. It is better to keep our 
money in use and circulation among 
ourselves than to send it abroad in ex- 
change for commodities which we can 
make as well as foreigners, 

Ninth. It is belter to kopp our own 
capital and our own. labor employed 



than it is to keep the capital and labor 
of other nations employed. 

Tenth. There is more of Individual 
libertj^ here in America than in any 
other nation, and the average Amer- 
ican citizen is better educated, better 
housed, better clad, and better fed, and 
counts more in achieving force than 
tlie average citizen of any other coun- 
try. 

Eleventh. If the products of poorly 
paid foreign labor are admitted into 
American markets duty free, then in 
order to compete with foreign labor 
American labor must work for the 
same wages paid foreign labor, plus 
the cost of transportation of foreign 
products into the American market. 

Twelfth. If American labor were 
forced to the low wage scale of for- 
eign nations, it would degrade the 
average of American citizenship and 
emphasize social difference. 

Thirteenth. Tariff agitation and 
Tariff uncertainty are injurious to In- 
dustrj'. 

Fourteenth. The more there is man- 
ufactured, the more people there are 
employed; and the inore people there 
are employed, the more people there 
are to buy what the farmer has to sell; 
and the more people there are to buy 
what the farmer has to sell, the bet- 
ter price the farmer gets for what he 
has to sell; and the better price the 
farmer gets for what he has to sell, 
the more the farmer buys of what the 
manufacturer makes to sell; and the 
more the manufacturer makes to sell, 
the more he pays to labor to manufac- 
ture what he makes to sell. [Applause 
on the Republican side.] 

Wages at Nome and Abroad. 

Fifteenth. I submit tables showing 
wages in certain occupations, and cost 
of production of certain articles at 
home and abroad. 

I had some difficulty in getting these 
figures, but they are authentic. 

If these propositions be accepted as 
true, then it follows that any Tariff 
policy which would share our 90,000,- 
000 population market vvith foreign 
capital and foreign labor by the Im- 
portation of foreign commodities 
which we can grow, manufacture, and 
produce g^s well as foreigners, would 
be admitting to our markets the prod- 
ucts of those who Protect their mar- 



106 



HAMILTON. 



kets against us, and would lower the 
level of our own citizenship without 
raising the level of foreign citizenship, 



would stimulate foreign manufacturers 
while depressing our own, would in- 
crease the employment of foreign la- 



A comparison of 


xcages, ty 


tUe hour 


and 


by the 


day of 


eight 


hours. 


in the 


United States 




and certain 


countries of Europe 


in 1903. 








United States. 


Great Britain. 


Germany. 


France. 


Belgium. 




Hour. 


Day. 


Hour. 


Day. 


Hour. 


Day. 


Hour. 


Day. 


Hour. Day. 


Bricklayers. . . . 


. . $0.55 


$4.40 


$0.21 


$1.68 


$0.13 


$1.04 


$0.13 


$1.04 


$0.08 $0.64 


Stonecutters . . . 


.42 


3.36 




.20 


1.60 


.12 


.96 


.14 


1.12 


.07 .56 


Stone masons . . 


.46 


3.68 




.21 


1.68 


.13 


1.04 


.14 


1.12 


.08 .64 


Hod carriers .. 


.29 


2.32 




.13 


1.04 


.08 


.64 


.10 


.80 


No data. 


Carpenters .... 


.36 


2.88 




.20 


1.60 


.13 


1.04 


.15 


1.20 


.07 .56 


Painters 


.35 


2.80 




.18 


1.44 


.12 


.96 


.13 


1.04 


.07 .56 


Plumbers 


.44 


3.52 




.20 


1.60 


.11 


.88 


.15 


1.20 


.08 .64 


Machinists 


.27 


2.16 




.17 


1.36 


.13 


1.04 


.13 


1.04 


No data. 


General laborers 


.17 


1.36 




.10 


.80 


.08 


.64 


.10 


.80 


.05 .40 



Production Cost Compared. 

A comparison of the cost of productioyi of certain articles in the United States, Great Britain, 

and Belgium. 



Articles. 



United States. 
Labor All other 



cost. 



One yard cashmere cloth of cotton and 
low botany wool of equal weight and 
quality. (Weaving wage given as labor 
cost) $0,064 

One yard cashmere cloth of cotton and 
botany worsted of equal weight and 
quality. (Weaving wage given as labor 
cost) 064 

1 yard all-wool sateen of botany wool 
of equal weight and quality. (Weaving 
wage given as labor cost 058 

1,000 common red building brick 2.33 

1 dozen ivory-handled table knives, prac- 
tically same size, American make best 
English steel, English make ordinary 
steel 94 

1 dozen knife blades used fftr above 

knives 63 

1 gross green glass spirit bottles, equal 
capacity and weight 

1 ton (2,240 pounds) Hematite pig iron. 

1 dozen plain ironstone-china plates, 
equal size, American make half ounce 
heavier 

1 dozen plain cups and saucers same size, 
style, and weight 



Great Britain. Belgium. 

Labor All other Labor All other 
expense. cost, expense, cost, expense. 



$0,196 $0,013 $0,143 



1.88 
1.23 



.22 
.23 



.135 



.65 
1.91 



7.18 



.015 



.014 



.163 



.30 



.55 



2 25 
9.43 



.85 
.445 



1.15 
.79 



3.65 



$0.66 



$0.69 



.40 



1.91 
11.25 



.24 
.25 



Wages in Woo/en Manufacture. 

A comparison of the wages of labor employed in ivoolen manufacture in the United States, 

England, France, and Italy. 

United 

Italy. France. England. States. 

Sorters $4 60 $6.40 $7.30 $12.50 

Washers or dyers 3.00 4.25 5.00 7.00 

Carders 2.30 4.00 3.90 600 

Gill boxes 2.30 3.70 3.00 600 

Comb minders 2.30 3 70 3.00 600 

Boss spinner 7.00 9.25 12.60 1800 

Mule spinner 5.80 6.20 7.30 9.50 

Ring spinner 230 4 00 3.00 6 00 

Weavers 3 00 4.60 4.00 9.00 

Fullers and pressers 3.50 4.25 6.00 7.00 



bor while reducing the fniployment of 
our own, and would increase the circu- 
lation of American- money abroad and 
reduce Its circulation at homo. 



Two Theories. 

Ill tlic framing of a Tariff law. two 
theories are at. work: One, the Re- 



HAMILTON. 



107 



publican theory of a Tariff whicli shall 
"equal the difEerence between the cost 
of production at home and abroad, to- 
g-ether with a reasonable profit to 
American industries," the other, the 
Democratic theory that Protection is 
"robbery" and that the Tariff ought to 
be revised by a system of "gradual 
reductions" down to "a revenue basis." 

That is, by a system of "gradual re- 
ductions" it is proposed to take down 
the chimnej', take off the roof, take 
out the windows, take down the walls, 
and, finally, remove the foundations of 
our industrial edifice, so that no one 
will be disturbed while being turned 
out of doors. [Applause on the Re- 
publican side.] 

For illustration, the Dingley law- 
contains fourteen schedules and a free 
list, embracing 463 classes of com- 
modities, and these in turn embrace 
thousands of articles grown, manu- 
factured, produced, bought, sold, and 
used by millions of people, and It is 
perfectly apparent that a system of 
"gradual reductions" would Introduce 
a general condition of doubt and dis- 
trust in which no manufacturer would 
dare to buy raw material except in 
limited quantities to be manufactured 
In limited quantities and sold in lim- 
ited quantities upon a shifting market. 

The only system of "gradual reduc- 
tions" the country ever had was Henry 
Clay's "Sliding scale," which slid into 
the panic of 1837. 

A Revenue Basis. 

And when we had reached a "Tariff 
for revenue basis" — when we had 
reached the bottom — what would we 
have? 

A Tariff for revenue only is a Tariff 
on things the like of which we do not 
grow and produce, England collects 
more revenue per capita than we do, 
but she collects it on a Tariff for reve- 
nue only basis. A Tariff "for revenue 
only" is a Tariff only for revenue, and 
a Tariff for one thing "only" obviously 
can not be a Tariff for two things. 

Therefore there can be no such thing 
as a Tariff for revenue only, with in- 
cidental Protection. 

But there can be such a thing as a 
Tariff which shall "equal the differ- 
ence between the cost of production 
at home and abroad, together with a 
reasonable profit to American indus- 



tries," and that is what the Republican 
platform in the last campaign declared 
for. 

Recognizing that there can be no 
such thing as a Tariff for revenue 
only, with incidental Protection, some 
gentlemen on the other side have be- 
come more or less open advocates of 
Protection. 

The South's Need of Protection. 

In the langvjage of the New York 
Sun: 

Alabama and Tennessee are becoming 
manufacturing States, and their pros- 
perity depends largely upon their coal 
and iron industries. Their need of Pro- 
tection is imperative. Georgia and the 
Carolinas are developing enormous in- 
dustries in cotton products, which also 
need Protection. Louisiana would per- 
ish under a dispensation of Free-Trade 
in sugar and rice. Virginia has her to- 
bacco, and so it goes. Each wants its 
own peculiar industry nourished by Con- 
gress, yet all join in denouncing "the 
party of Protection." 

Other gentlemen recognizing that 
there can be no such thing as a Tariff 
for revenue only, with incidental Pro- 
tection,, have evolved a hybrid com- 
promise between the demands of their 
constituents for Protection, which they 
can not safely disregard, and their 
platform utterances which they can 
not repudiate and retain their identity 
as a party, and propose a Tariff which 
would neither be high enough for Pro- 
tection nor low enough for Free-Trade, 
to be reached by a sliding scale of dis- 
aster, compared with which the arid 
waste from '93 to '97, strewn with the 
skulls and bones of defunct business 
enterprises, would be as a drought to a 
desert, 

That is, the- duty which they would 
finally levy, when they had reached 
the bottom of the "sliding scale," 
would be constructed on the water- 
gauge plan, and would measure the 
flow of importation and collect toil 
therefrom, and the swifter the flow 
the greater the revenue, down to ap- 
proximate Free-Trade. And the swifter 
the flow, the more American labor and 
American industries would be sub- 
merged. 

But these gentlemen have not ven- 
tured to try to incorporate their vari- 
ous views in a bill. 

Trusts. 

But we are told in the Democratic 



108 



HAMILTON. 



platform of 1908 that Protection Pro- 
tects trusts and that "articles entering 
into competition with trust-controlled 
products should be placed upon the 
free list." 

Let us examine this. 
Trusts are corporations organized 
under the laws of various States — not 
under the laws of the United States — 
but trusts are not peculiar to the 
United States. The further the nations 
of Europe have advanced commer- 
cially, the more their industries have 
centralized, and a proposition to put 
articles the like of which are made by 
trusts upon the free list simply means 
the opening of American markets to 
foreign trusts, which are Protected in 
their own country against American 
trusts. 

Not only are foreign trusts Pro- 
tected, but foreign governments sanc- 
tion and uphold them upon the theory 
that with steam-driven machinery it is 
better to run steadily and keep men 
steadily employed than to run halt- 
ingly to supply a fluctuating demand, 
and that by running steadily every 
unit of production is made cheaper. 

Not only that, but these foreign cor- 
porate combinations have international 
trade combinations, by which they 
seek to regulate output and apportion 
trade among themselves. 

Not only that, but they sell cheaper 
abroad than at home. 

Not only that, but Germany owns 
90 per cent of her railroads, and by 
1957 France will own all of hers, and 
the government-owned railroads of 
Germany and France carry goods de- 
signed for export at lower rates than 
goods designed for home consumption. 
Not only that, but the sea is no 
longer a barrier, but a means of cheap 
and easy transportation. 

Two Factories. 

We live in a Tariff world and a 
world of corporate combinations, and 
a Tariff bill has to be framed with 
reference to conditions as they are. 

Down to the beginning of the trust 
era the problem was simpler. 

Let me illustrate. One example la 
worth a thousand arguments: 

Assume for the purpose of Illustra- 
tion that the gentleman from Missis- 
sippi — If my friend will permit me — Is 



a foreign manufacturer, and that I am 
an American manufacturer. 

I have no figures for other countries, 
but if he builds in England and wants 
to borrow money, he can borrow it 
cheaper than I can here; his machin- 
ery will cost him less than mine, his 
power will cost him less than mine, 
his belting will cost him less than 
mine. 

We each begin to excavate for the 
foundations of our factories, and he 
pays his diggers the current wages of 
SO cents a day if he builds his factory 
in England, 64 cents a day if he builds 
in Germany, and 40 cents a day if he 
builds in Belgium; I pay mine $1.36 a 
day. We paj'' more than that in Michi- 
gan, but $1.36 is the average for the 
United States. 

Wages of Mechanics in England, Germany, 
Belgium and tfie United States. 

Then we begin to lay the walls, and 
he pays brick masons $1.68 a day If 
he builds in England, $1.04 if he builds 
in Germany, and 64 cents if he builds 
in Belgium. I pay $4.40 a day. 

He pays stone masons $1.68 a day if 
he builds in England, $1.04 if he builds 
in Germany, and 64 cents a day if he 
builds in Belgium, and I pay $3.68 a 
day. 

He pays hod carriers $1.04 a day If 
he builds in England, 64 cents if he 
builds in Germany, and 40 cents a day 
in Belgium, and I pay $2.32 a day. 

He pays carpenters $1.60 a day if he 
builds in England, $1.04 if he builds 
in Germany, and 56 cents a day In 
Belgium, and I pay $2.88. 

He pays painters $1.44 a day if he 
builds in England, 96 cents a day In 
Germany, and 56 cents a day in Bel- 
gium, and I pay $2.80 a day here. 

He pays plumbers $1.60 a day if he 
builds in England, 88 cents a day In 
Germany, and 64 cents a day in Bel- 
gium, while I pay $3.52 a day here. 

We proceed to set the machinery, 
and he pays skilled machinists $1.36 
a day if he builds in England. $1.04 If 
he builds in Germany, and 64 cents a 
day in Belgium, while I pay $2.16 a 
day here. 

It Is obvious that in the labor em- 
ployed in construction alone my fac- 
tory has cost more than the foreign 
factory. 

Before I get through I want to show 



HAMILTON. 



109 



that the enforcement of a Protective 
Tariff has its ethical aspect. We have 
a civilization here on American soil 
which naakes the average citizen, the 
average man, the best all-round man 
on earth, I believe. 

Now, this is an industrial co-operat- 
ive association in a broad way. Ob- 
viously we can not pull the rest of the 
world up to our standard, because the 
rest of the world is too big; but we 
can levy duties which shall prevent 
the pauper-made or cheaply inade 
goods of foreign nations coming in 
here and competing with our better 
paid American labor. If we should 
put wage conditions here down to the 
foreign level, of course that would 
affect injuriously American citizenship. 

In the Absence of Protection. 

Now, let us get back to our two fac- 
tories. We go on, and my friend 
Candler, who is personating the for- 
eign manufacturer, turns out a case of 
goods, let us suppose, of cashmere 
cloth. I had a good deal of trouble to 
get commodities that could be com- 
pared accurately as to foreign-labor 
cost and American-labor cost. Sup- 
pose we are making cashmere cloth. 
He turns out a case of, say, 100 yards, 
and his weaving wage, as I have as- 
certained, would amount to $1.30, and 
I turn out a case with a weaving 
wage of $6.40. 

In his factory all other expenses In- 
cident to the production of this case of 
goods amount to $14.30 and in my fac- 
tory to $19.60. 

Therefore he can lay his case of 
goods down at my factory door for 
$15.60, plus cost of transportation, 
while my case of goods costs me $26. 

In the absence of Protection, there 
is but one thing for me to do, and that 
is to call out my men and explain to 
them that we must either shut up shop 
or that they must work for the wages 
paid abroad. 

Revenue and Protection. 

Just here the Tariff interposes and 
says to you: Mr. Candler, as a foreign 
manufacturer you pay no taxes here, 
you support no institutions, you build 
no schools, churches, benevolent or 
charitable institutions or homes for 
the unfortunate, you contribute noth- 
ing for public improvements ^"^ for 



police protection', therefore we require 
you to pay a sum for tht privilege of 
trading in our market which shall 
"equal the difference between the cost 
of production at home and abroad." 

But you say in that case the price Is 
increased to the consumer by the 
amount of the duty exacted. 

Down to the beginning of the trust 
era, which is the culmination of tend- 
encies which commenced long ago, the 
answer to this was that others seeing 
the success of my factory built other 
factories until my factory was multi- 
plied by thousands and tens of thou- 
sands scattered throughout the coun- 
try, and that these factories, by inven- 
tions and improvements and by com- 
petition among themselves, reduced 
prices to consumers in many instance*, 
even below the duty exacted. 

Prices, Wages, Business. 

But suppose prices are not reduced 
below the duty exacted; suppose 
prices are not even reduced to the 
level of foreign prices; suppose even 
that prices are higher than foreigrn 
prices; what then? 

Even though prices may not be re- 
duced to the level of foreign prices, 
the more industries there are the more 
men there are employed and the more 
their purchasing power is increased, 
and as I have said before on this floor, 
the more men there are employed the 
bigger the town, and the bigger the 
town the better the market for the 
farmer, and the better the market for 
the farmer the more valuable the 
farm. 

The more Industries there are, the 
more capital there is employed and 
the more railroads, steamboats, and 
factories there are built, and the more 
mines there are dug and the more 
farms there are improved. 

Some eight years ago, at the height 
of the trust transition period, it was 
estimated that onl^' 12.8 per cent of 
the manufactured output of the United 
States was made by trusts, and that 
therefore 87.2 per cent of the manu- 
factured output of the United States 
was made by competing independent 
industries. 

The accuracy of that estimate has 
never been verified, but supposing only 
50 per cent of the manufactured out- 
put of the United States is made by 



110 



HAMILTON. 



competing independent industries, what 
would be the effect of the Democratic 
proposition to remove the duty from 
articles the like of which are manu- 
factured by trusts? 

Is it not perfectly apparent that If 
this policy would have any effect at 
all, its first effect would be to drive 
the smaller competing independent in- 
dustry to the wall? 

And when you had done that what 
would you have? 

Is it not perfectly apparent that you 
would have great corporate combina- 
tions holding the field alone and dic- 
tating terms to producers and con- 
sumers and to labor? 

And when you had done that, what 
would there be to prevent foreign and 
domestic corporations from organizing 
international trade combinations just 
as they are doing now in Europe? 

And when you had done that, what 
remedy would labor have, what rem- 
edy would producers and consumers 
have, against the arbitrary prices 
fixed by international trade combina- 
tions? 

Mr. COX, of Indiana. Will the gen- 
tleman tell us what remedy he offers 
for the control of the trusts? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I am not person- 
ally put to the necessity of originating 
remedies for trusts. The Republican 
party, in response to a patriotic duty, 
has been considering conditions as 
they are, and as a party we have gone 
about the business of regulating com- 
binations by law, and that apparently 
is the only way to accomplish it. We 
are now regulating corporations, in 
the language of the law, "affected 
with a public interest," like the great 
carrying corporations doing interstate 
business, but the regulation of private 
occupations rests upon a different rule, 
and it would take too long to discuss 
it now. 

The Case of Certain College Professors. 

We are engaged in passing a Tariff 
bill for ninety millions of people. Of 
these 90,000,000 people about 29,000,000 
are engaged in so-called gainful occu- 
pations, 10,000,000 in agriculture. 7,- 
000,000 in manufacturing and me- 
chanical pursuits, 5,000,000 in trade and 
transportation, and 7,000,000 in pro- 
fessional and domestic service, and any 
law which would discriminate for or 



against any one of these industrial 
divisions would meet with universal 
execration. 

The interlocking and interdependent 
relations of our whole population are 
illustrated by the case of certain col- 
lege professors, discharged during the 
hard times from 1893 to 1897 because 
of the falling off of the income from 
certain railroad bonds held by the col- 
leges employing the professors. 

To trace the line of causation back 
to the cloistered professor of some 
dead language or political economy is 
interesting. 

For various reasons, now known to 
all men, during the years from 1893 
to 1897 times were hard, and, accord- 
ing to Samuel Gompers, 3,000,000 men 
were out of work. 

Therefore, men out of work 'lought 
less and less at the stores; and the 
stores bought less and less of the fac- 
tories; and the factories paid out less 
and less in wages; and the farmer sold 
less and less to everybody. 

Then railroads, having less and less 
to haul from mill to merchant and for 
everybody, began to lose money, al- 
though they cut down wages, laid off 
labor, and laid off trains. 

They failed to pay their fixed 
charges and operating expenses, and 
finally the railroads, being in the 
hands of receivers and being unable 
to pay the interest on their bonds held 
by the college employing the profes- 
sors, the college was obliged to dis- 
charge the professors who 

Taught the Free-Trade 

That shut up the shops. 

That shut down the mills, 

That shut off the traffic. 

That ruined the railroads. 

That stopped the interest. 

That paid the professors their sal- 
aries. 

This is the industrial house that 
Wilson built. 

What Are We Protecting, and Why? 

This Government does not belong to 
a few of us. It belongs to all of us, 
and we are engaged in passing a Tariff 
bill, not for some of us, but for all of 
us — buyers and sellers, producers and 
consumers — engaged in many occupa- 
tions, and inasmuch as every man is a 
producer as well as a consumer, a 
buyer as well as a seller; and inas- 



HAMILTON. GARDNER, 



111 



much as every man as a buyer wants 
to buy low, and as a seller wants to 
sell hig-h, he illustrates in himself the 
impossibility of putting prices up for 
the benefit of sellers or putting prices 
down for the benefit of buyers. 

We are engag-ed in passing a Pro- 
tective Tariff law. What are we to 
Protect and why? 

First, we are Protecting a civiliza- 
tion here, which, under the form of 
democratic self-government, is seeking 
to preserve the right of men to exer- 
cise their faculties in lawful occupa- 
tions, jointly or severally: and to pre- 
serve the opportunity of all by re- 
straining the monopoly of opportunity 
"by a few. 

Second, as a part of this preserva- 
tion of this democracy of opportunity, 
we propose to maintain a wage scale 
among American laboring men which 
shall enable them to maintain their 
own self-respect. 

Third, to do this. It is necessary for 
us to hold the wage level of our people 
above the wage level of other nations 
by a Protective Tariff which shall 
"equal the difference between the cost 
of production at home and abroad." 

One of Two Things Would Happen. 

If the products of the labor of 
poorly paid foreig'n workmen were ad- 
mitted to our markets duty free to 
compete with the products of our bet- 
ter paid workmen, one of two things 
would happen: Either American la- 
bor would have to g-o down to the 
Industrial and social level of foreign 
labor, or else we would have to raise 
the industrial and social level of the 
rest of the world, which is iinpossible. 

The nearest approach we can make 
to the raising of the level of foreign 
workmen Is by admitting' some of them 
here subject to reasonable restrictions 
and merging them into our own popu- 
lation. 

In the exercise of these reasonable 
restrictions, no doubt the exclusion of 
coolie labor makes it harder to get 
"help" on the Pacific slope. 

No doubt the contract-labor law 
makes it more difficult for employers 
to dictate terms to labor. 

But If coolie labor may be imported 
from across the Pacific and the lower 
forms of European labor from across 
the Atlantic for the purpose of allow- 



ing them to underbid American labor, 
then obviously we do not raise the 
level of foreign labor even on our own 
soil, but we lower the level of our own 
labor. 

As a nation we are engaged not only 
in building factories and raising crops, 
but in raising men. 

In this way the Tariff question be- 
comes an ethical question. 

In the maintenance of this Protected 
co-operative union of American labor 
and American industries, we have no 
right to exclvide any territory appur- 
tenant to the United States nor to dis- 
criminate for or against any race, sec- 
tion, or class under our flag. 

Protection is for the Protection of 
the American people — not of any par- 
ticular interest. 

Protection is for the Protection of 
our American industrial democracy — 
not of any industrial oligarchy. 

It is inadequate if it forces any In- 
dustry to reduce American wages to 
the level of foreign wages. 

It is indefensible if it is so levied as 
to legislate wealth into the hands of 
any special interests. 

In this way Protection becomes a 
question of patriotism. 



A Massachusetts Plea in Favor of 
Free Hides. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7. 
190C,. 

AUGUSTUS P. GARDNER, of Massa- 
chusetts. Mr. Chairman, with regard to 
this question of free boots and shoes 
raised by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Burleson] , and I would like to have 
his attention for a moment, the gentle- 
man knows very well that hides always 
were free until the Dingley bill was en- 
acted. He knows very well that boots 
and shoes always carried a duty of from 
20 to 30 per cent when hides were free. 
Upper leather carried a duty of 20 per 
cent when hides were free throughout 
the period of the Wilson Act and at all 
other recent times prior to 1897. 

Sole leather carried a duty of 10 per 
cent. Then came along the Dingley bill, 
and Congress said we will put 15 per 
cent duty on hides, and in return we 
will raise the duty on boots and shoes 
from 20 to 25 per cent, and on sole 
leather we will raise the duty from 10 
per cent to 20 per cent. We will leave 



112 



GARDNER. SIMMONS. 



upper leather where it is. Now. when 
we reverse the situation and take the 
duty off hides we are willing to give you 
more than you gave us when you put 
it on. We accept 15 per cent on boots 
and shoes where we had 20 before. We 
accept 5 per cent on sole leather where 
we had 10 per cent before. We accept 
15 per cent on upper leather where we 
had 20 per cent before the duty on hides 
was imposed. Now, the gentleman from 
Texas tells us that h» can not vote for 
free hides because it is not a fair ex- 
change, although we are conceding him 
more than we received when hides were 
put on the dutiable list. Now I yield to 
the gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. COX. of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, 
does the gentleman believe that it is 
fair for that, western country to raise 
the cattle and for the manufacturers in 
New England to get their hides free and 
at the same time have an enormous rate 
of duty on the manufactured products 
of boots and shoes that we out in that 
countrj' must buy? 

MR. GARDNER, of Massachusetts. 
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's cows are 
Protected from tail to horn, and his 
farmers are mighty well Protected in 
other respects. Moreover, the shoe and 
leather trade must pay a duty on tan- 
ning extracts and dyes. We are not 
getting our raw materials free. Now, to 
go on. You say. Give our farmers what 
they are giving you and we will be sat- 
isfied. We are giving you more. If you 
calculate a reduction of 10 per cent on 
the duty on boots and shoes 3'ou will see 
what it means. Why, I remember hear- 
ing people argue in this House as to 
how much more a pair of shoes will 
cost if you have a duty on hides. The 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifer] , who 
thinks that upper leather is not ever du- 
tiable leather, shakes his head, because 
he does not know what farmer's upper 
leather is made of. Now, the fact is 
that nobody claims that the hide duty 
adds as much as 15 cents to the cost of 
a pair of shoes, and yet we are giving 
the farmer more than 15 cents in return 
for free hides. We are giving up 10 per 
cent of the duty on our fini.'^licd product. 
Under the Payne bill, if you import a 
pair of $2.50 shoes we give up 25 cents 
of our Protection. If you could import 
shoes as cheap as $1.50 per pair, then 
we should be giving 15 cents off our 
Protection. If j'ou import a f.') shoe, we 



must yield 50 cents of our present Pro- 
tection. 



The Nation Adhering to Protective 
Policies Has Enjoyed the Highest 
Measure of Prosperity. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
igog. 

JAMES S. SIMMONS, of New York. 
In considering this bill the following 
equally important objects must be con- 
stantly kept in view, namely: 

Revenue for carrying on the Govern- 
ment; proper Protection for the manu- 
facturing industries; adequately remun- 
erative employment for operatives; and 
fair treatment for the great army of 
consumers. 

To enable the Government to collect 
the revenues estimated under this or any 
Tariff act, the country must be pros- 
perous, and for this condition to exist 
our factories must be constantly oper- 
ated so that our pe pie may be fully 
employed, and thus become possessed of 
purchasing power. 

Never, since the founda:tion of our 
Government, does history record that 
any of the above-mentioned co-ordinate 
factors prospered but that all prospered. 
Never at any time has one of them been 
depressed but that all have been de- 
pressed, and the Tariff law enacted at 
this special session of Congress will de- 
termine the immediate business future 
of this Nation. 

It must be admitted by every Mem- 
ber of this body that it is through the 
prosperity of our manufacturers, and the 
high scale of wages maintained thereby, 
that we derive national prosperity to a 
greater extent than from any other 
source, and time has fully demonstrated 
that a condition of prosperity to our 
manufactories can be accomplished only 
by a Protective Tariff. 

The wisdom of this policy of the Gov- 
ernment has been so conclusively proven 
that I do not think it admits of argu- 
ment. 

In the past twelve years of our na- 
tional life, under the operation of the 
Dingley Tariff law, not only has our Na- 
tion recorded its mpst phenomenal in- 
dustrial growth, but the like of it has 
never been known in the history of the 
world. 

The experience of every country of the 
world has clearly demonstrated that the 



SIMMONS. FULLER. 



113 



nation adhering to Protective policies 
has enjoyed the highest measure of 
prosperity. 

l/ast Differences Attributed to Our Tariff 
Laws. 

No more forcible illustration of this 
statement can be given than a compari- 
son of the growth and development 
made by this Nation and our close 
neighbor, the Dominion of Canada. 

In a speech made in my home city 
several years ago by one of the most 
prominent men of the Canadian coun- 
try, he stated that Canada had as large 
a land area as the United States; that 
it was as rich in mineral and timber re- 
sources as was the United States; that 
its agricultural resovirces were as great 
and as extensive as those of the United 
States; and that, while the two coun- 
tries had begun their national lives 
about the same time, the United States 
had reached a population of more than 
80,000,000 of people, with the accumula- 
tion of almost incalculable wealth, while 
Canada had. within the same time, only 
reached a growth of about 6.000,000 of 
people and proportionately a much 
smaller aggregated wealth. 

He stated that he attributed these vast 
differences in population and wealth 
more to the Tariff laws existing in the 
two countries than to any other reasons, 
the American Nation having maintained 
for many years a Tariff for Protection 
as well as for revenue, while Canada 
had mainly followed the policy of Tariff 
for revenue only. 

He stated further that he thought ex- 
isting conditions had demonstrated be- 
yond question that our policy of Tariff 
for Protection was correct, and that he 
rejoiced in the fact that his Govern- 
ment was revising its Tariff laws on 
lines of Protection to their industries 
and their labor; and this policy is now 
being pursued by the Canadian govern- 
ment in a most vigorous manner. 

Protection Urged for Pulp, Paper and 
Lumber. 

T represent a district which is one of 
the largest producers of pulp and print 
paper in the United States— a district 
having a capital invested in this indus- 
try amounting to $5,000,000, with a pro- 
duction valued at $2,500,000, and giving 
employment to over 2.000 operatives. I 
reside on the very borders of Canada, 



which country is the great competitor 
of ours in the production of these arti- 
cles. I know that by reason of the lower 
cost of pulp wood in Canada, the low 
scale of Canadian wages, and its cheaper 
power, if pulp is put on the free list and 
the print-paper duty reduced to $2 per 
ton, our industries will be completely 
driven out of business. 

I am satisfied that under the present 
Tariff on these articles the American 
manufacturers thereof make but a fair 
and reasonable profit, and such profit 
the Republican national platform as- 
sured this industry it would receive. I 
favor the maintenance of the present 
rate of duty on these articles; but if. In 
the wisdom of the House, revision shall 
be generally downward throughout the 
bill, I contend that under no circum- 
stances should the duty on print paper 
be reduced below $4 per ton. This would 
be a reduction of 33 per cent from the 
rate under the present (Dingley) law 
and would, in my opinion, be more rad- 
ical than the prevailing reductions. In 
the bill. 

I also find my constituency most un- 
justly treated in the schedule covering 
rough lumbei'. That this great Ameri- 
can industry, together with the pulp and 
paper industries, should have been sin- 
gled out for slaughter in this bill is a 
condition beyond comprehension. 



Every Tariff Bill Must Necessarily 
Be a Compromise. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
1909. 

CHARLES E. FULLER, of Illinois. 
More important than any schedule or any 
rate of duty is that the matter should 
be definitely settled, and that every bus- 
iness interest in the country should 
know what to expect and to depend 
upon as to Tariff duties and taxation. 
I only desire to say now that I am a Re- 
publican, and therefore a Protectionist. 
I believe, as firmly as I believe anything, 
in the Republican doctrine of Protection 
to American industries and to Ameri- 
can labor; Protection of the one is ne- 
cessarily a Protection of the other. 
Under all the circumstances, I am for 
this bill as it is. 

Every Tariff bill calculated to raise 
revenue or to Protect the industries of 
the country must necessarily be a com- 
promise, and we must each give up 



114 



CLARK. 



something to the opinions and interests 
of the others, and each separate section 
of the country must waive something for 
the general good. The business of the 
country waits and prosperity halts until 
final action is taken by this Congress. 
I hope it may prove that the law when 
enacted will produce sufficient revenue 
for the needs of the Government, and 
that at the same time it may reason- 
ably Protect all American industries and 
give full employment to all America'n 
laboring men. Then, indeed, shall we 
reasonably expect a return of the great 
prosperity that has heretofore been the 
good fortune of this Nation, and which 
has made the progress and development 
of this country the wonder and admira- 
tion of the world. 



A Southern Democrat Who Sup- 
ported a Protective Tariff Bill. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
- igog. 

FRANK CLARK. of Florida. The 
Democratic party has declared, as the 
gentleman from Texas well knows, for 
a Tariff for revenue only. It has de- 
clared for a Tariff for revenue with in- 
cidental Protection, and I believe that 
is the most sensible declaration it ever 
made on the subject, because it is abso- 
lutely impossible to fix and collect a 
duty on any article coming into this 
country in competition with like articles 
produced here unless you do add a 
measure of Protection to the people who 
own and sell such like articles so pro- 
duced in this country. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] 

I will tell you what I said to my peo- 
ple and what they said to me: As long 
as a Protective Tariff system prevails in 
this country, as long as the articles we 
have to buy are taxed, as long as my 
people have to bear the burdens of It. 
they say that we ought at least to have 
a division of the benefits. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] That is where I 
stand. You may call it "swag" or what 
you please, but I represent as intelligent 
and patriotic a constituency as the gen- 
tleman from Texas does. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] 

Mr. SHACKT.EFOIin. Let mo nsk the 
gentleman one more qupslion. The gen- 
tlnni.-in from Florida wants a tax on son- 
Island cotton. I want to know if he is 



willing, in order to get a Tariff on sea- 
island cotton, to join the Republicans in 
putting an increase on hosiery and knit 
goods and tea and coffee and the other 
things that they have in their bill? 

Mr. CLARK, of Florida. I stated a 
while ago that all legislation was the re- 
sult of compromise. 

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Mr. Chair- 
man 

Mr. CLARK, of Florida. I will an- 
swer. I will give a categorical answer, 
but I will do it in my own way. I have 
said there are diverse interests all over 
this country, I do not expect to write 
this bill. It would be presumption to 
go to these gentlemen and ask the priv- 
ilege of doing so. I do not know whether 
they are going to put sea-island cotton 
in the bill or not. I do not know any- 
thing about it at this late hour, I can 
assure the gentleman; but I said this 
in the beginning of my remarks, that 
if they put into that bill what my con- 
stituents sent me here instructed for, I 
shall not undertake to dictate what else 
they shall put in it after getting what 
my people want 

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. You will take 
theirs? 

Mr. CLARK, of Florida. I will vote 
for the bill; yes. [Applause on the Re- 
publican side.] 

Tired of Living Bacic in the Years Before 
He Was Born. 

I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, in 
conclusion. I do not care anything 
about the scoffs and jeers of these peo- 
ple. I came to my own conclusion, and 
my people have come to theirs. You 
folks do not elect me to Congress. You 
do not send a Representative from the 
second district of Florida here to repre- 
sent that district. I am here to repre- 
sent the 225,000 or 230,000 people in that 
great district which sweeps the entire 
eastern coast of Floiida. There is not a 
State in the Union that is not repre- 
sented in that district by some citizen 
from that State. 

They are wholly American in every re- 
spect. They have come from all over 
this Union there; they have married and 
Intermarried with our people, and it is 
as thoroughly an American community 
as there is in the broad expanse of this 
Republic; and I am tired of living back 
in the years before I was born. [Laugh- 
ter and applause on the Republican 



BURKE. GRONNA. HANNA. HUMPHREY. 



115 



side.] Democracy ought to be progres- 
sive if it is anything; it ought to keep 
pace with the times; it ought to meet 
the conditions as we find them; and I do 
not concede for a moment that you 
gentlemen represent the Democracy; you 
do not represent it any more than I 
do. I will meet you, if I live, at the 
next national convention, and we will 
see who is in control and who repre- 
sents the Democratic sentiment of this 
great Republic of ours. [Loud applause 
on the Republican side.] 



For a Liberal Protective Duty on 
Barley. 

From the Congressional Record of April 9, 
1909. 
CHARLES H. BURKE, of South Da- 
kota. Mr. Chairman, as a Republican 
and Protectionist and in behalf of the 
people of my State and of the other 
great States in the agricultural West, 
I want to say a word in favor of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Kansas. I earnestly appeal to the 
Members of this House to vote to re- 
store the duty on this product from 
the rate stated in the pending bill to 
25 cents per bushel, which is 5 cents 
less than the duty under the existing 
law. 



Barley Entitled to a Duty That is 
Prohibitive. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
1909. 

ASLE J. GRONNA, of North Dakota. 
We are producing in North Dakota, as 
my friend from South Dakota [Mr. 
Burke] has said, more than 18,000,000 
bushels of barley. I am not here to say 
whetlier or not 25 cents a bushel is the 
duty needed to Protect us on barley, but 
I do say that we are entitled to a duty 
that is prohibitive because we can raise 
more barley than we can consume. 

Mr. Chairman, we are using an acre- 
age of about thirty- two millions in the 
United States in raising barley. We 
have 45,000,000 acres in North Dakota 
alone, and we can produce more barley 
than you can use in the United States. 



North Dakota Farmers Vitally Inter= 
ested in the Tariff on Barley. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
1909. 
LOUIS B. HANNA, of North Dakota. 
There is no product in North Dakota, to 
my mind, at the present time, which is 
so vitally affected by the Tariff as is 
barley. It is contemplated under the 
provision of the Tariff bill which is now 
before us to reduce the duty on barley 
from 30 cents, as provided by the pres- 
ent law, and to make the duty 15 cents 
per bushel. The gentleman from Kan- 
sas has made a motion to increase the 
Tariff as contemplated from 15 cents per 
bushel to 25 cents per bushel, and it 
would seem that his motion should pre- 
vail. It costs the farmers of North Da- 
kota every cent of 15 or 20 cents per 
bushel to put their barley into the mar- 
kets of New York State and in New 
England. With this proposed reduction 
of the Tariff, barley will come into the 
United States from Ontario in compe- 
tition with the barley which is raised in 
the Northwest, and the American farmer 
of the Northwest will not be sufficiently 
protected if the Tariff is made 15 cents 
per bushel as against the barley raised 
by the farmer in Canada. The produc- 
tion of barley in the United States under 
the Dingley law of 30 cents a bushel 
has gone up by leaps and bounds, and 
to-day we are raising in the Northwest 
barley sufficient for the needs of the 
whole country, and last year there was 
practically no barley imported into the 
United States. In the Northwest there 
are 500,000 farmers raising barley, and 
they are asking and sending petitions 
to us by the hundred that the Tariff on 
barley shall be let alone and stay where 
it now is, and as near as I can find out 
there are only some half dozen men in 
the State of New York interested in the 
brewing and malt business who are ask- 
ing for the redaction of Tariff on barley 
and barley malt. 



Inordinate Local Selfishness to De- 
mand Free=Trade in Lumber. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
1909. 
WILLIAM E. HUMPHREY, of Wash- 
ington. I am not greatly enamored of 
the Republicanism of the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Tawney] as shown 



110 



PAYNE. HULL. 



by his record in regard to the Tariff 
question. But yesterday he favored a 
Tariff on lumber. Then his district pro- 
duced lumber. To-day he favors a high 
Tariff on barley and Free-Trade on lum- 
ber. His district no longer produces 
lumber, but it does produce barley. What 
he will want on the free list and what 
he will want Protected to-morrow will 
be measured by the harvests that are 
reaped in his district. Republicanism 
dictated only by human selfishness in a 
sublime desire to profit at the expense 
of others does not command my respect. 
It has been repeatedly urged by each 
side of the House that Protection on 
farm products is a fraud. If this be 
true, why clamor for additional duty on 
barley? The lumberman buys more dol- 
lars' worth of Protected products from 
the farmer, three to one, than the 
farmer buys lumber from him. Why 
should not the lumberman have farm 
products free if the farmer is to have 
free lumber? Never before in public 
life has there been a more complete ex- 
ample of inordinate local selfishness and 
utter disregard of the interests of the 
country at large than has been displayed 
here by certain gentlemen who have 
cried out for a duty on hides, an in- 
creased duty on barley, and then de- 
mand that lumber and everything else 
not produced in their districts shall go 
upon the free list. The opposition led 
by these men is responsible for the rule 
that has placed the great industry of 
lumber in jeopardy. They are respon- 
sible for delaying this bill for several 
days, which, according to the estimate 
of the Speaker and other prominent 
men, has meant a loss of many million 
dollars to the country. But for their op- 
position this bill would now be in the 
Senate. I admit that it is the right of 
any Member, if he wishes, to vote for 
any schedule or against any schedule; 
that it is his right to Protect his own 
interests; that it is his right to demand 
an increased Protection upon his prod- 
ucts. But I deny that it is the right of 
any man or any set of men to demand 
that they be taken care of, that they be 
i-iven special privileges, at the expense 
of the other industries of the country. 
I deny that it is the right of any man 
to demand that everything his district 
produces be Protected and everything 
tliat is bought by that district be placed 
on the free list. Men who make such 
demands are not following Republican 



principles — they are following personal 
interests. [Applause.] 



No Duty on Coffee. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7^ 
/pop. 
SBRENO E. PAYNE, of New York. 
We do not propose to put a Protective 
duty on coffee for the small amount that 
can be raised in the possessions of the 
United States. I am sorry not to be 
able to accommodate my friend from 
Porto Rico, but we can not do it, in jus- 
tice to the consuming public of the 
United States. One argument against 
putting any duty upon coffee, even for 
revenue, is that under it these people 
might put their money into coffee, and 
after a while on the strength of produc- 
ing 15 or 20 per cent of the consump- 
tion in the United States, would come in 
and make a claim that they had in- 
vested their money relying upon this 
Protection, and would remonstrate 
against taking the duty off. 



Tariff on Glue. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
1909. 
JOHN A. T. HULL, of Iowa. Let me 
say. Mr. Chairman, that the countries 
of Austria and Germany are now Pro- 
tecting themselves against us more everj' 
year. The amount imported, even under 
the Dingley rates, has increased each 
year. We have got to Protect ourselves 
in a reasonable way, and at least 2V'i 
cents on glue is not an extravagant duty. 
To my mind the House will do a great 
injustice to that industry, which is not 
localized in any one part of the coun- 
try, but extends wherever there is a 
packing-house interest, independent, or 
in Chicago, and uses a product that 
would otherwise go to waste. I hope the 
committee amendment will be adopted. 



A Protective Duty Needed by South- 
ern States. 

From tlie Congressional Record of April 7, 
1909. 
SERENO E. PAYNE, of New York. 
This amendment. Mr. Chairman, in- 
creases the duty on crude barytes from 
75 cents to $1.50. There were extensive 



PAYNE. ELVIXS. P.ARTHOLDT. 



11^ 



hearings on this matter. Those inter- 
ested asked for an increase from 75 cents 
to $5, and rather prejudiced their case 
by their extravagant demands. The 
committee in reviewing this matter read 
again the evidence and came to the con- 
clusion that they were fairly entitled to 
this increase, doubling the duty from 
75 cents to $1.50. The duty on refined 
under the Dingley law is $5.25 a ton, and 
we have retained that dutj-. 

Mr. MANN. What is the present law 
on the crude? 

Mr. PAYNE. Seventy-five cents, and 
we have increased it to $1.50. 

Fifty per cent of it is mined in Wash- 
ington County, in the State of Missouri, 
by a number of small miners and people 
of small means. It is used as a mixture 
in paint. The United States Army offi- 
cials have examined the subject through 
some experts and say that it is a val- 
uable ingredient in paint, and', mixed 
with lead, it prevents the lead from 
l-.listering, and so forth, and so is val- 
uable as a mixture. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Where is it pro- 
duced? 

Mr. PAYNE. Oh, in the" Southern 
States; some in Missouri, much of it in 
the Appalachian Range, and also in the 
State of Tennessee. It is wholly a 
Southern industry; and, of course, the 
committee, looking after all sections of 
the countrj', have been peculiarly kind 
to the South in Protecting their indus- 
tries wherever the idea of Protection 
could be legitimately advanced, and we 
thought that they ought to have an in- 
creased duty on this because of the im- 
portations under the duty of 75 cents a 
ton. 



Tariff on Barytes. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
1909. 
POLITTE ELVINS, of Missouri. Mr. 
Chairman, unlike the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Stanley] I am not a 
Democrat, but am a Republican of the 
Protectionist brand, and therefore I am 
in favor of this increased duty upon ba- 
rytes. The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Harrison] has just stated that 52 
per cent of all of the barytes in the 
United States is produced in Washing- 
ton County, Mo. Such is nearly the fact, 
and Washington County is in the dis- 
trict that I represent in this body, and I 



rise to urge thi.s increase in Tariff on 
her chief product that she may become 
a rose in the bouquet of general pros- 
perity. 

None of these gentlemen has offered 
to pijt his product on the free list in case 
barytes is put on the free list, although 
it is his raw material. The labor is our 
"raw material," and we want it Pro- 
tected against the cheaper labor of Ger- 
many. If some of the wise legislators 
across the aisle or elsewhere will raise 
the daily pay of the tiff diggers of Ger- 
many and Newfoundland to the wage 
that is demanded and ought to be regu- 
larly had by the barytes miners of my 
district, I shall consent that barytes may 
go upon the free list, but I shall never 
consent that the wages of the miners of 
Washington County be cut down to an 
equality with those of the foreigners 
mentioned to please the fancy of raw- 
material men, Free-Traders, or anybody 
else. [Loud applause.] 



Protect Labor's Products and You 
Protect Labor. 

From the Congressional Record of April 7, 
1909. 

RICHARD BARTHOLDT, of Missouri, 
The differences between the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Harrison] and my- 
self on this question can not possibly be 
reconciled, for the simple reason that the 
proposed amendment is proposed in the 
interest of Protection to the American 
miner as against the miner in foreign 
countries. It is the difference between 
Protection and Free-Trade and between 
the Democratic party and the Republi- 
can party. We try to give employment 
to American labor, while if this amend- 
ment is not adopted, we will use barytes 
mined by foreign labor. That is the dif- 
ference. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Are you not al- 
lowing hundreds of thousands of foreign 
laborers to cpme into this country every 
year? 

Mr. BARTHOLDT. I want to say to 
the gentleman that the mines and mills 
in Missouri and in other States which 
produce barytes are now closed. The 
miners are idle, and the men who have 
invested their capital in that industry 
receive no return from it. In order to 
revive that industry, it is absolutely 
necessary that the Republican party 
should apply the principle of Protection 



118 



SWASEY. 



as it has been applied, through this very 
bill, to many other industries of the 
country. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. What is the dif- 
ference between Protecting foreign la- 
borers in Germany and bringing them 
here and Protecting them here? 

Mr. BARTHOLDT. Oh, that is a ques- 
tion which touches an entirely different 
phase of national economy. I would 
rather manufacture in this country, I 
would rather have the foreign laborer 
conie here and manufacture here, thus 
becoming American consumers, instead 
of having our products manufactured 
abroad and coming here as ballast In 
ships. 



Would Give All Industry the Benefit 
of the Doubt. 

From the Congressional Record of April 8, 
1909. 

JOHN P. SWASEY, of Maine. Now, 
we hear on the other 3ide of this Cham- 
ber arguments in favor of Tariff and 
Tariff for revenue only, and I thought, 
from the way delegations divided, of the 
old Democrat down in Virginia that I 
heard of in the last election, who said 
he voted for Bryan, but when he 
dropped his ballot in the box he was si- 
lently praying for Taft. 

Now, I am a Protectionist, and I am 
for Protection that means Protection. I 
am not for a Protection to American 
industries that leaves any industry de- 
serving Protection at the hands of Con- 
gress on the ragged edge and in doubt, 
living between hope and despair. I am 
in favor of putting a duty upon competi- 
tive product of American manufacture 
that is certain to Protect them. 

Mr. COX, of Indiana. The gentleman 
announces that he is a Protectionist. 
Will the gentleman inform the commit- 
tee whether he is a modern-day Protec- 
tionist or an ancient stand-patter? 

Mr. SWASEY. I am older than some 
and younger than some. But I am for 
Protection, as I say, that will Protect. 
I would give the industry the benefit of 
the doubt. The duty had better be too 
high than too low. The duty can be re- 
duced if too high easier than the indus- 
try can be raised from its ashes. This 
word "downward," to me, has an omin- 
ous sound. I believe it to be true that 
every time there has been a reduction 
in the American Tariff it has been fol- 



lowed by a reduction of American 
wages. I stand for 30,000,000 of wage- 
earners and 11.000,000 of farmers who 
are producers, and all consumers as well. 

Tariff On Pulp and Paper. 

Now, the particular industry to which 
I call the committee's attention is one 
in which I am greatly interested. My 
constituents are greatly interested in it. 
A select committee was appointed of 
Members of this House. The distin- 
guished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Mann] , who is now present;, was made 
chairman. That committee was ap- 
pointed upon a cry that - is so startling 
to us Americans, "combinations in re- 
straint of trade;" or if they want to 
make it more effectual, they will holler 
"trusts." And who w^as behind that cry? 
The great combination of the American 
Newspaper Association, a worthy asso- 
ciation, a great educational industry, one 
that we can not do without in this coun- 
try; and yet they have a power over and 
above any other combination of men in 
the United States. They said, accord- 
ing to Mr. Mann's report, and the reso- 
lution that was introduced in this 
House, that there had been a combina- 
tion in restraint of trade; there had 
been a combination — conspiracy, as the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Malby] 
said this morning — to raise the price of 
print paper and to put the American 
Publishers' Association to an additional 
expense of from $24,000,000 to $60,000,- 
000. 

Tfiere Is No Conspiracy. 

That cry has been kept up, notwith- 
standing the distinguished gentleman 
from Illinois, wiio was appointed chair- 
man of the committee, has reported that 
he found no conspiracy; that he found 
no combination; that he found no trust; 
and his examination was accompanied 
with that thoroughness and desire to 
discover the facts for which the honor- 
able gentleman is characteristic. He 
will say, further, in my opinion, that no 
industry in the United States of its mag- 
nitude or within reach of its importance 
to-day or any day since that resolution 
was introduced in the House, is freer 
from the taint of combination, freer 
from any conspiracy to control or raise 
Its prices, and Is open, more than any 
otlior great Industry, for competitive 
bidding. 

Now, I want to come down to the 



MALBY. 



110 



question of the Tariff. Wliy. Mr. Chair- 
man' I ask, does any committee of this 
Congress desire to single out a great in- 
dustry that has made so many homes, 
that has expended so much money; that 
has made sucli vast investments, that 
has issued its bonds and its securities 
until they have found lodgment for in- 
vestment in the hands of thousands of 
men and women in this great country — 
v,hy. I say, have they singled out that 
industry to reduce the duty upon its 
product? 



The Interests of Forest Conservation 
Cannot Be Served By Making 
Paper Cheaper. 

From the Congressional Record of April 8, 
1909. 

GEORGE R. MALBY, of New York. 

Mr. TIRRELL. Is it notj a fact that 
the paper companies own about 5,0(K).000 
acres of timber land in this country? 

Mr. MALBY. I so understand it. 

Mr. TIRRELL. And that in order to 
conserve the .forests they are now pur- 
chasing about one-third of their logs in 
Canada so as to cut down their own 
timber only when it has reached a 
proper growth, thereby conserving the 
forests of the United States? 

Mr. MALBY. Undoubtedly the state- 
ment of the gentleman is true. I would 
have made that statement myself, but I 
understood it was already in the Rec- 
ord. 

It is an entirely fair suggestion that 
should the American manufacturers be 
destroyed or seriously crippled, the price 
of paper will go up instead of down. 
The interests of forest conservation can 
not be served by making paper cheaper. 
They are best served by m.aking paper 
dearer. Who will plant a tree in place 
of one cut down when the one cut 
down is scarcely worth the cutting? 
What the people of this country want is 
not larger newspapers and more bad 
magazines, but smaller newspapers and 
better magazines. [Applause.] 

The Only Great Conspiracy. 

There is but one further suggestion 
which I desire to make in closing, and 
that is that the great conspiracy which 
it now appears — if it ever had any ex- 
istence—is represented by certain mem- 
bers of the American Newspaper Pub- 



lishers' Association, who were success- 
ful in creating a false impression and 
maliciously libeled the great paper in- 
dustry of this country and the honor- 
able gentlemen who are engaged in it in 
order that they might secure cheap pa- 
per and not for the purpose of redress- 
ing any wrong — a wrong which never 
existed, and which they never had the 
slightest reason or authority to believe 
or claim did exist. We have been told 
that the past twelve years has witnessed 
an era of prosperity unprecedented in 
this or any other country on the globe 
since the beginning of time. In the main, 
this may be said to be true; but what 
of those who have struggled along in 
the paper industry? How have they 
fared and how have they shared in this 
general prosperity? Who is there who 
can demonstrate or even claim that any 
considerable portion of this prosperity 
has been theirs? 

Entitled to Consideration. 

The International Paper Company, the 
greatest of them all, after an unprece- 
dented struggle has been able to pay 
the interest on its bonded indebtedness; 
for a short period it paid 6 per cent in- 
terest on its preferred stock and none 
on its common stock. For the past year 
its net income has dwindled to practi- 
cally nothing, and it now pays the in- 
terest on its bonds and 2 per cent on its 
preferred stock, and it may be said that 
this corporation is one of the best man- 
aged in this country. The St. Regis 
Paper Company, referred to by Mr. 
Mann, chairman of the committee, hav- 
ing a capital of over $2,000,000, has 
scarcelj'' paid a dividend on its stock, 
and the Remington Paper Company, 
with a capitalization of several million 
dollars, has practically paid nothing t® 
its stockholders. The Gould Company, 
which was fortunate enough to possess 
its own lands and purchased very little 
outside, has been able to pay a dividend 
of 6 per cent. How does this compare 
with the record of any other industry 
during the past twelve years, and what 
possible justification can there be for 
making their matters worse? We' have 
had abundance of prosperity in this 
land, but none of it has come to the 
paper maker or the stockholders of this 
kind of property. Thousands of citizens 
throughout the land are owners of stocks 
and bonds in these corporations. Are 



120 



STAFFORD. GRAHA.AL 



they not entitled to a little consideration 
at the hands of Congress? [Applause.] 



Cost of Pulp and Paper Production 
In the United States and Canada. 

From the Congressional Record of April 8, 
1909. 

WILLIAM H. STAFFORD, of Wiscon- 
sin. Prior to the hearings much was 
heard in justification of the old Tariff, 
that labor was cheaper in Canada than 
in the American mills; but the testi- 
mony discloses, without contradiction, 
that skilled labor in the Canadian paper 
mills proper receive as high wages, and 
in some instances higher, than in the 
States. This is ascribable to their hav- 
ing been induced to leave employment 
in American mills, for which they de- 
manded a higher wage. So also in the 
scale of wages paid to the unskilled la- 
bor in the paper mills. Their wages are 
generally on a par with those in this 
country, and if time permitted I would 
read the average wages paid in all 
classes of employment in the Eastern 
and Western American mills and in the 
Booth mill, which is an up-to-date Ca- 
nadian mill, located at Ottawa. 

An analysis of the cost of production 
as disclosed by the hearings of the In- 
ternational Paper Company, which man- 
ufactures 30 per cent of the news print 
paper of this country, with mills located 
in New York, Massachusetts, and New 
Hampshire, and of the Booth mill at Ot- 
tawa, upon the basis of 80 per cent of 
ground wood and 25 per cent of sulphite 
pulp in a ton of paper, without includ- 
ing repair cost or selling cost, shows 
that the cost to the International Paper 
Company for 1 ton of paper would be 
$30.05. of which $11.53 would be for 
ground wood, $7.84 for pulp, and $10.68 
for other materials and cost of conver- 
sion; while in the Booth mill the total 
cost for a ton of paper on the above ba- 
sis would be $28.38, of which $9.10 would 
be for ground wood. $7.46 for sulphite 
pulp, and $11.82 for other materials and 
cost of production. 

The returns further show that the cost 
of production in some of the New York 
paper mills, such as the St. Regis and 
the Gould paper companies' mills in the 
Watertown district, is less by more than 
a dollar a ton than that of the Interna- 
tional Paper Company; while the cost 
of production in the three wcsU'di mills 



located in Wisconsin and Minnesota 
that made returns of their cost of o'per- 
ation is also less by more than a dollar 
than that of the International. 

The schedules of cost of the eastern 
and western mills will prove that the 
cost of production does not vary much 
from the cost of the Canadian mills, and 
that $2 a ton more than equals the dif- 
ference in the cost of production. 

In the arguments of the two gentle- 
men to-day no mention whatsoever v/as 
made as to the varying cost of produc- 
tion between Canada and the United 
States. Those gentlemen assume, by 
their silence, that the statement made 
the other day by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Mann] , the chairman of 
the paper committee, is true, that wages 
paid in Canada are equal to, if not in 
excess of, the wages paid in this coun- 
try. 

Now, with a line of manufacture on 
the same plane as that in this country, 
what harm can come by permitting Ca- 
nadian paper makers to compete in our 
markets, if we thereby insure the per- 
petuity to the American paper manufac- 
turer of a perpetual supply of pulp 
wood? 



How Pennsylvania Deals with the 
Trusts. 

From the Congressional Record of April 8, 
1909. 
WILLIAM H. GRAHAM, of Pennsyl- 
vania. It is the never-ceasing cry, es- 
pecially in my own State among local 
Democrats who have no desire to offer 
any Protection whatever to our indus- 
tries as well as among those malcon- 
tents in our own ranks — or fusionists, 
otherwise more popularly known as "in- 
surgents" — that the good old Common- 
wealth of Pennsylvania is the mother of 
trusts. I want to state that the State 
of Pennsylvania always has and it will 
continue to encourage its corporations. 
But what else does Pennsylvania do? 
She in turn taxes these same corpora- 
tions, of course, and the result is to- 
day that the people are not taxed for 
the maintenance of our State govern- 
ment. These expenses are all paid out 
of the taxes received from these same 
curpoiations which we welcon)ed to us, 



ORATTAM. PAYXE. 



121 



which we assisted in starting. Our 
State appropriates annually many mil- 
lions of dollars toward the support of in- 
stitutions not under management of the 
State, such as hospitals, asylums, and 
all sorts of institutions for the relief of 
suffering humanity. And that is not all; 
from these revenues raised by taxation 
of corporations our State returns to the 
counties for support of common schools 
from three- to four millions of dollars. 
In this connection, it is my opinion that 
some of the other States in the Union, 
aye. many of them, might do well to fol- 
low our example, instead of so heavily 
taxing its farmers and wage-earners 
generally. 

Pay Roll of One County One Million Dol- 
lars a Day. 

I am for Protection. I believe in Pro- 
tecting our industries with a view to 
continuing our present prosperous condi- 
tions, for in Protecting them' is not the 
country reaping the benefits by their 
employment of labor and the mainte- 
nance of our high wage scale and stand- 
ard of living, the highest by far in all 
the world? It is our bounden duty to 
endow our citizens with every possible 
facility and advantage, and it is for that 
reason mainly that I am for a high Pro- 
tective Tariff. It may not be lacking 
in interest here to state, Mr. Chairman, 
that under ordinary conditions the pay 
roll in my county, the little "State of 
Allegheny." is something over $1,000,000 
a day. That is, I speak of conditions 
under a Protective Tariff. I remember 
however, the distressing times that fol- 
lowed the passage of the Democratic 
Free-Trade Wilson bill; how the man- 
ufacturing industries throughout the 
country were paralyzed, factories closed 
down, employees thrown out of work; 
hard-working, honest men, who had 
never known the true meaning of idle- 
ness before, forced to tramp from city 
to city searching for work; soup houses 
established in every city in the land; and 
such distress throughout the country as 
had never before been witnessed. But 
this is ancient history, and I will not 
take up the time "in stirring up your 
pure minds by way of remembrance" of 
these harrowing scenes, that I trust will 
never be repeated — certainly not unless 
the Democratic party should be restored 
to power and attempt a repetition of 
their Free-Trade fallacies. 



Protection for the Briar Wood Pipe 
Industry. 

From the Congressional Record of April 8, 
1909. 

SERENO E. PAYNE, of New York. 
Mr. Chairman, I olTer the following com- 
mittee amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Paragraph 194, page 54, line 5. after 
the words "lace-making machines," in- 
sert the following: "including machines 
for making lace and machines for mak- 
ing nets and netting"; and in line 7, 
after the words "lace -making ma- 
chines." insert the following: "inclu- 
ding machines for making laces and ma- 
chines for making nets and netting." 

The question was taken, and the 
amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer 
the following amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Paragraph 198. page 55. lines 23, 24, 
and 25, strike out the words "briar root 
or briar wood and similar wood unman- 
ufactured, or not further advanced than 
cut into blocks suitable for the articles 
into which they are intended to be con- 
verted"; and insert at the end of the 
paragraph, on page 56, line 7, after the 
word "valorem," the following words: 
"briar root or briar wood, ivy or laurel 
root, and similar wood unmanufactured 
or no further advanced than cut into 
blocks suitable for the articles into 
which they are intended to be convert- 
ed, 25 per cent ad valorem." 

Mr. HARRISON. Will the gentleman 
please explain the reason for the imposi- 
tion of this duty? 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes; these are on the 
free list. The proposition is to let them 
pay a duty of 25 per cent for revenue. 
It appeared to the committee that briar 
root or briar wood was formerly pro- 
duced, or rather gathered, in this coun- 
try in large quantities for the purpose of 
making pipes. It was quite an industry 
in some of the Southern States, and re- 
gardful always of the interests of the 
Southern States we have put a Protect- 
ive Tariff on this briar root and briar 
wood of 25 per cent ad valorem in order 
to revive that interest, so that the South 
may supply the American smoker in 
the matter of briar root pipes instead 
of importing foreign wood for that pur- 
pose. It is to encourage this Southern 
industry. 

Mr. MANN. I want to ask the gren- 
tleman if the supply of briar wood in the 
United States is sufficient to furnish the 
demand for all briar wood pipes? 

Mr. COWI.ES. Yes; the material that 



122 



PUJO. 



this will cover will furnish material 
enough to make all the pipes in the 
world for years to come. I will further 
state for the gentleman's benefit, if he 
will permit me, that the McKinley bill 
placed a duty of 20 per cent ad valo- 
rem on briar wood, and during that time 
a number of factories sprung up in 
North Carolina, and perhaps in Virginia 
and Tennessee, manufacturing material 
from which pipes are made. 



A Southern Democrat's Appeal for a 
Protective Duty on Rice. 

From the Congressional Record of April 8, 
1909. 
ARSENE P. PUJO, of Louisiana. The 
effect of this amendment, in a few 
words, is to apply the present rate of 
duty on rice shipped from any foreign 
country into the United States; also 
against rice which might be shipped 
from the Philippine Islands; that is, as 
to this amendment, the Philippine Isl- 
ands are placed upon the same footing 
as any foreign country. It has been my 
contention for more than two years that 
it was a matter of justice and a matter 
of right to those engaged in rice cul- 
ture in the United States that such an 
amendment or such a provision should 
be incorporated into the law of the land. 

I want to express my thanks as a rep- 
resentative of the people of my district, 
and to the people largely interested in 
rice in the State of Louisiana, for the 
fair action on the part of the Commit- 
tee on Ways and Means, in so far as 
this amendment is concerned. And I 
want to say to my good Democratic 
friends that you will suffer no em- 
barrassment for supporting this measure. 

Mr. SABATH. Will not your amend- 
ment increase the price of rice? 

Mr. PUJO. It will not, in my judg- 
ment; but it will put an industry which 
has developed in the last ten or twelve 
years, confined solely to the people of 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
Florida. Alabama. Mississippi, Louis- 
iana, Texas, and Arkansas, upon a foot- 
ing of safety. 

It will make those who have their 
money in it feel that they will not be 
subject to be flooded with rice from the 
Philippines. 

Mr. SABATH. You are excluding the 
Philippine rice? 



Competition from the Philippines. 

Mr. PUJO. Not at all. We are ex- 
cluding no rice; but we say that rice 
shipped from the Philippines into the 
United States must pay a fair duty, be- 
cause if this aniendment were not 
adopted, rice wholly the product of the 
Philippine Islands could be shipped here 
and sold at a profit for less than its cost 
to produce in this country. 

Mr. MANN. Do I understand the po- 
sition of the gentleman to be that there 
is danger that the Filipinos will raise 
rice and ship it here, and then, in order 
to supply the local consumption, import 
rice from other oriental countries? 

Mr. PUJO. They imported 625,000,000 
pounds of rice last year. 

Mr. MANN. Did that take the place 
of any rice exported? 

Mr. PUJO. Not at all; but it is possi- 
ble that the rice grower of the Philip- 
pine Islands, who produces it under 2 
cents a pound, could compete with 
Louisiana, Texas, or South Carolina rice 
growers, who have to pay 2.40 cents a 
pound to produce it. 

Mr. MANN. I would like to get the 
gentleman's position. Does the gentle- 
man believe there is danger the Filipino 
will raise rice and export it to this coun- 
try, and then for local consumption im- 
port rice to take its place? 

Mr. PUJO. I believe it is entirely pos- 
sible, and very probable. . Whether the 
Filipino does it or not, there is nothing 
to prevent capitalists in this country 
from buying that rice at 1.9 cents a 
pound, adding a quarter of a cent trans^ 
portation, and then undersell the Amer- 
ican rice grower. 

Mr. Chairman, that is my position, and 
I believe it is our duty to safeguard the 
interests of those building up a great 
section of the country, and not to legis- 
late for those away from home as 
against those who have invested their 
money, who are American citizens, and 
are contributing to internal develop- 
ment. 

Mr. MANN. Does not the gentleman 
think also that if we force our goods on 
the Filipino free of duty, we owe them 
a little duty on our side? 

Filipinos Don't Want Free-Trade in Rice. 

Mr. PUJO. In answering the gentle- 
man, I would call to his attention the 
fact that the Filipinos themselves do not 
want Free-Trade in rice with the United 



PUJO. FORDNEY. MOORE. 



123 



States, and both of tlieir representatives 
here spoke against it the other day. 

Mr. SLAYDEN. Is it not true that 
the Philippine assembly last week 
passed a resolution asking for closer 
commercial relations? 

Mr. PUJO. That is true; and it has 
been true with a view of the nonreten- 
tion of the archipelago. 

Mr. MANN. But do they want goods 
imported from this country into the 
Philippines free of duty, and then re- 
quire them to pay a duty on goods im- 
ported from the Philippines here? I 
heard both speeches, and heard no such 
suggestion. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. 
What is the rate of duty provided on 
rice? 

Mr. PUJO. Two cents a pound for the 
clean rice and IV^ cents for the un- 
cleaned rice, and running on down the 
scale. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. Is 
this a revenue duty or for Protection? 

Mr. PUJO. It is primarily to produce 
revenue, but it is Protective in the sense 
of preventing the bringing of rice into 
this country from any other country, 
which will absolutely destroy one of the 
greatest agricultural interests of the 
country. I want to state for the infor- 
mation of the committee that the rice is 
shipped from foreign countries into the 
Philippine Islands and pays only a half 
a cent a pound duty. So, they can b\jy 
their rice from countries near there at 
a half a cent a pound and then send it 
here on a Protected market without pay- 
ing duty. 

Low Cost of Filipino Production. 

Mr. FORDNEY. The evidence is that 
the Filipino people can produce rice at 
1.1 cents per pound, and the freight on 
that rice to the United States is but 
one-quarter of a cent per pound. By 
bringing their domestic rice into our 
markets under Free-Trade they can un- 
dersell the rice of Louisiana, and there- 
fore I am in favor of this amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana. 

The question was taken; and on a di- 
vision (demanded by Mr. Mann) there 
were — 123 ayes and 75 noes. 

So the amendment was agreed to, 



The Whole Problem Is One of Con- 
tinuing an American Industry. 

From the Congressional Record of April 9, 
1909. 
J. HAMPTON MOORE, of Pennsylva- 
nia. Many of the large mills that man- 
ufacture hosiery are in my district, and 
I have heard from both the employer 
and the employed upon this subject. So 
far as they are concerned, the whole 
problem is one of continuing an Ameri- 
can industry. The mills have been pro- 
ceeding in good faith to manufacture 
hosiery for the American market. They 
have found foreign competition so strong 
that jjnder the Dingley law they can not 
profitably compete with it. Instead of 
running full time they have been obliged, 
in most instances, to run quarter time, 
which means the displacement of three- 
quarters of the labor employed. The 
loss of wages is even more serious than 
the loss of profits, since the inability of 
the mill worker to obtain the usual wage 
deprives him of that purchasing power 
which is so essential to the common 
prosperity. I do not want to excite any 
prejudices in this matter, but I can not 
too strongly impress upon the represen- 
tatives of other constituencies in this 
House that the industrialists of the con- 
gested centers of population must have 
regular employment and a fair chance 
to earn a living wage or the markets of 
the food producers of the land can not be 
profitably sustained. 

Imported Hosiery Has Displaced the 
American Article. 

What Is the present contention? The 
hosiery industry has been widely estab- 
lished in the United States, but by rea- 
son of the cheaper labor and cheaper liv- 
ing in Europe imported hosiery has 
gradually displaced the American article 
in our own markets. The importer has 
gotten the upper hand of the manufac- 
turer and manages to get in through the 
custom-houses foreign-made hosiery In 
such quantities that the demand for 
home-made hosiery has fallen off, and 
both capital and labor employed in the 
home industry have suffered. 

To remedy this un-American condition 
the Committee on Ways and Means has 
raised the duty upon certain grades of 
hosiery in order to stem the influx of 
foreign manufactures .that now threaten 
the American mills and their thousands 



124 



MOORE. PAYNE. BOUTELL. 



of woi'king people. The importers have 
taken the other tack. They oppose the 
increase and argue that the buyer of ho- 
siery will be obliged to pay more for the 
home-made than for the foreign article. 

Shall the Mills Be Undermined? 

It would appear that we are called 
upon to legislate upon this proposition: 
"Shall the hosiery mills of this country, 
with their vast expenditure of capital 
and their thousands of employees, be 
given a fair chance to supply the Amer- 
ican market, or shall the Tariff barriers 
be lowered, so that these mills and their 
employees shall give way to the poorly 
paid operatives of the mills of Germany 
and other countries?" With pardon- 
able enterprise the importer of German 
hosiery seeks to hold the advantage he 
has already obtained against the Amer- 
ican producer, but it has not been the 
policy of the Republican party nor is it 
in accordance with the spirit of Ameri- 
can patriotism that we should destroy 
our home industries to obtain cheap- 
ness in commodities. If our own work- 
ing men and women are given a fair 
chance in this matter of hosiery manu- 
facture, there will be no increase in the 
price of hosiery to the purchaser. Local 
competition will adjust that. It has done 
so in nearly every instance where the 
production or manufacture of commodi- 
ties has been properly encouraged and 
regulated. 



To Compel Foreign Nations to Give 
Us a Fair Deal. 

From the Congressional Record of April 9, 
1909. 
SERENO E. PAYNE, of New York. 
Not all the Members of the House seem 
to appreciate the fact that sections 1 
and 2 provide minimum rates of duty, 
section 1 providing the duty on certain 
articles and section 2 providing what 
articles shall be upon the free list. Sec- 
tion 3 is for the purpose of compelling 
or persuading foreign countries to give 
us as favorable trade relations as they 
give any other country, and therefore 
the duty is raised in section 3 upon these 
articles enumerated in section 1 and 
certain articles are taken from the free 
list in section 2 and enumerated in sec- 
tion 3, and to bear a duty of 20 per 
cent. Now, if every gentleman is to 
get up here and put in an amendment 
providing tliut the articles enuineraLed 



one by one or schedule by schedule in 
section 3 are to be put upon the same 
rate of duty as in section 1, there is no 
use in having any section 3. 

We might just as well deliver the 
American people bound hand and foot 
to the maximum Tariffs which are ex- 
acted by foreign countries. But il is 
for the purpose of freeing our people 
from those maximum Tariffs that we 
have section 3 and- increasing the duty 
and creating a maximum Tariff. Our 
maximum Tariff does not increase the 
general Tariff rate anywhere near to the 
proportion exacted by France or Ger- 
many or other countries. We have made 
moderate increases, generally of 20 per 
cent of the duty. It is not expected by 
the committee, and it is not expected by 
the American people who have taken the 
trouble to examine this bill, that we 
shall have to impose the maximum 
rates, because the nations of the earth 
will be glad to get .their goods in at our 
minimum rates. From the very begin- 
ning everything coming from Great Brit- 
ain will come in at the minimum rate, 
because Great Britain extends to us 
every trade facility that she extends to 
any other nation in the world. And that 
being so, Mr. Chairman, does any man 
here suppose that Germany or France 
is going to keep themselves and their 
people out of our markets by imposing 
an unjust rate upon us, by putting a 
maximum duty on imports coming from 
this country, or will they be swift to 
give us the benefit of the minimum rate, 
as low and as favorable as they extend 
to any other nation on earth? 



Thomas Jefferson on Discriminations 
Against Our Commerce and Naviga- 
tion. 

From the Congressional Record of April 9, 
1909. 
HENRY S. BOUTELL. of Illinois. Mr. 
Chairman, the gentlemen on the other 
side of the House, in discussing this bill, 
have spoken of the words "Protection," 
"prohibition." and "maximum rates" as 
though they were pure inventions of 
the Republican party and all made at 
this late day. I would like to call atten- 
tion of the members of this committee 
to a report made to the House of Repre- 
sentatives by no less a Democrat than 
Thomas Jefferson, when, as Secretary of 
State, he was called upon to express his 



BOUTELL. KINK AID. 



125 



opinion in reference to the discrimina- 
tions tliat were made against our com- 
merce and our navigation. The report 
was sent to the House on December 16. 
1793. It answers the very question asked 
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Clark]. It ought to have been added to 
his list of four great national documents 
on the Tariff. Every line of it glows 
with the spirit of patriotic Americanism 
and rings with the spirit of Protection. 
I shall put it all in the Record, Mr. 
Chairman, as an appendix to my re- 
marks; but before this vote is taken I 
wish the gentlemen on the other side 
to listen to these sentiments from the 
father of Democracy. After having out- 
lined the discriminations that were made 
by other nations against our commerce, 
he says, among other things: 

But should any nation contrary to our 
wishes suppose it may better find its 
advantage by continuing its system of 
prohibitions, duties, and regulations, it 
behooves us to Protect our citizens, their 
commerce and navigation, by counter 
prohibitions, duties, and regulations also. 
Free commerce and navigation are not 
to be given in exchange for restrictions 
and vexations, nor are they likely to 
produce a relaxation of them. 

Again he says: 

The following principles, being 
founded in reciprocity, appear perfectly 
just and to offer no cause of complaint 
to any nation. 

1. Where a nation imposes high du- 
ties on our productions, or prohibits 
them altogether, it may be proper for 
us to do the same by theirs; first bur- 
dening or excluding those productions 
which thes' bring here in competition 
with our own of the same kind, select- 
ing next such manufactures as we 
take from them in greatest quantity 
and which at the same time we could 
the soonest furnish to ourselves or ob- 
tain from other countries, imposing on 
them duties lighter at first, but heavier 
and heavier afterwards as other chan- 
nels of supply open. Such duties, hav- 
ing the effect of indirect encourage- 
ment to domestic manufactures of the 
same kind, may induce the manufac- 
turer to come himself into these States 
where cheaper subsistence, equal laws, 
and a vent of his wares, free of duty, 
may insure him the highest profits 
from his skill and industry. 

Again he says: 

Need of Discriminating Duties. 

It is true we must exp^t some in- 
convenience in practice from the es- 
tablishment of discriminating duties. 
But In this, as in so many other cases, 
we are left to choose between two evils. 
These inconveniences are nothing when 
weighed against the loss of wealth and 
loss of force which will follow our per- 



severance in the plan of Indiscrimina- 
tion. When once it shall be perceived 
that we are either in the system or in 
the habit of giving equal advantages to 
those who extinguish our commerce and 
nav^ation by duties and prohibitions as 
to those who treat both with liberality 
and justice, liberality and justice will 
be converted by all into duties and pro- 
hibitions. It is not to the moderation 
and justice of others we are to trust for 
fair and equal access to market with 
our productions or for our due share in 
the transportation of them, but to our 
own means of independence and the 
firm will to use them. Nor do the in- 
conveniences of discrimination merit 
consideration. Not one of the nations 
before mentioned, perhaps not a com- 
mercial nation on earth, is without 
them. 

Now listen, my Democratic friends, 
who want to return to Jeffersonian prin- 
ciples, and vote accordingly: 

In our case one distinction alone will 
suffice; that is to say, between nations 
who favor our productions and naviga- 
tion and those who do not favor them. 
One set of moderate duties, say the 
present duties for the first, and a fixed 
advance on these as to some articles and 
prohibitions as to others, for the last. 

There. Mr. Chairman, is the original, 
historic doctrine of the maximum and 
minimum Tariff. Let us see how many 
will show their approval of it by their 
votes on this bill. [Applause on the Re- 
publican side.] 



Free Hides Is the Robbing of Peter 
to Pay Paul. 

From the Congressional Record of April lo, 
1909. 

MOSES P. KINKAID, of Nebraska. 
Right now I desire to respectfully, yet 
very earnestly, protest against the plac- 
ing of cattle hides upon the free list 
while according Protection to leather 
and shoes and the other products of 
leather which the farmer and stock raiser 
consume. 

Mr. Chairman, I wish a fair division 
of the profits of the policy of Protection. 
When the policy of Protection is put into 
operation by congressional enactment 
every American citizen is a stockholder. 
and he must pay dividends or assess- 
ments dependent upon the success or 
failure of the act. and especially as to 
his interests. It is fair that all should 
share alike in the advantages and pos- 
sible disadvantages of the policy; but I 
regret very much to say that the propo- 
sition as made by the tanner and shoe 
manufacturer — that in this revision a 



126 



KINKAID. CLARK. 



duty shall be continued upon leather and 
upon shoes, but that hides shall be placed 
upon the free list, and which provisions 
.have been incorporated into the pending 
bill — I regret to say I fear that if this 
clause should be ratified by the Congress 
that the result would be that my con- 
stituent, the farmer and the stock raiser, 
would be the jpayer of assessments that 
the tanner and the shoe manufacturer 
might be the drawer of dividends. I 
fear the result would be like robbing 
Peter to pay Paul. 

Farmers Want the Duty. 

I have heard from numerous other 
constituents, all of whom have written 
me in behalf of a continuance of the 
duty on hides. It strikes them as very 
unfair and unjust that hides should be 
discriminated against, as they view it 
and term it, by being placed upon the 
free list, while a mere percentage of re- 
duction is to be made as to leather and 
the manufactures of leather. Sir, this 
looks to me like a very one-sided propo- 
sition. Hides are placed upon the free 
list, while a reduction merely has been 
made of the duty upon leather and shoes 
and some other of the products of 
leather. In answer to this it is pointed 
out by tanners and shoe men and by 
distinguished Members of this body, who 
indorse their views, that nearly as much 
reduction has been made on some of the 
manufactures of leather as the whole of 
the 15 per cent ad valorem that the 
Dinglej'^ law accords to hides. But, sir, 
the treatment is not uniform or any- 
thing like it, for it is only a reduction 
as to shoes and other products of hides 
which is made, while the article of hides 
is deprived of any Protection whatever. 
Sir, the philosophy of the widow's mite 
is very pertinent. 

Unfair Inequalities. 

Sir. who is willing to stand such in- 
equalities? Who can stand such in- 
equalities? The injustice can not better 
be emphasized than by the statement of 
the fact that the cattle raiser must pro- 
duce the hide and sell it on a level with 
Mexican hides, where cattle are grazed 
upon lands worth so much less than our 
lands in the United States and the peon 
labor necessarily employed is paid from 
20 to 40 per cent of what our farm labor 
is paid; while, on the other hand, the 
cattle raiser must pay for the products 



of the free hides which he sells, a price 
enhanced by the duty imposed upon, say, 
boots, shoes, harness, saddles, and other 
leather products necessary to his con- 
sumption. It should be very plain to 
anyone that if the farmer is made to 
sell upon a certain basis he should be 
permitted to buy upon the same basis. 
It should be very plain, if one must sell 
upon a low basis all he produces and 
buy upon a higher priced basis all he 
consumes, that he must soon go to the 
"wall." 

What Is Raw Material? 

Mr. Chairman, what is raw material? 
I contend it depends wholly upon the 
circumstances of the case. With the 
shoe manufacturer the shoe completed is 
his finished product, while leather as he 
received it from the tanner is his raw 
material; with the tanner, the leather is 
his finished product, while hides are his 
principal raw material; with the farmer 
and stock raiser, a herd of breeding cat- 
tle, the farm upon which he keeps them, 
the grass, the hay he cuts and feeds, 
the corn he raises and feeds the cattle, 
and all the labor he bestows upon the 
cattle in raising them — these are his raw 
material, or is the material upon which 
he works to produce and from which he 
produces the l!>eef animal, his finished 
manufactured product. Why is not the 
money invested and the labor performed 
in this fundamental industry as worthy 
of Protection, as worthy of the benefits 
of the policy of Protection as the capital 
and labor employed in the manufacture 
of leather and of shoes? I can see no 
moral difference and contend that there 
should be no legal difference made by 
the Congress, and I maintain that a 
sound public policy will not sanction the 
discrimination between the two provided 
by the pending bill. 



Tariff on Pineapples Advocated by a 
Southern Democrat. 

From the Congressional Record of April JO, 
1909. 
FRANK CI.ARK, of Florida. Just one 
word now with reference to one state- 
ment made "by these importers. They 
say. In substance, that practically all of 
the land in the State of Florida suitable 
for growing pineapples is now in culti- 
vation, and that therefore our pineap- 
ple area can not be appreciably in- 



CLARIC. HAUGEN. 



127 



creased. The utter ignorance of some 
people as to the State of Florida, who 
profess to know all about it, is simply 
appalling-. The State of Florida is the 
largest State in point of area, save one, 
east of the Mississippi River, and there 
are to-day thousands of acres of land in 
that State adapted to the growing of 
pineapples which are lying idle, but 
would be planted to pines if our own 
people could be placed upon an equality 
with the Cuban growei\ We ask no ad- 
vantage of the Cuban; we only ask a 
fair chance and a "square deal." 

Mr. Chairm.an, the Democratic party 
has always insisted that the Tariff 
should bear heaviest on the luxuries of 
Hfe. Here is an article which is es- 
sentially a luxury, and it will be inter- 
esting at least to see if gentlemen who 
stand for a duty on corn — a necessity — 
intend to strike down the duty on pine- 
apples — a luxury. This contest for a 
higher rate on pineapples is a contest 
between the farmers of Florida, Hawaii, 
and Porto Rico on the one side, and the 
canners and importers on the other. 
Where will the ancient friends of the 
much overworked "common people" line 
up? Where will those who have for 
years been howling from the housetops 
for heavy duties on luxuries and practic- 
ally Free-Trade in necessities take their 
stand? "By their fruits, ye shall know 
them." 



Of All Our Industries Agriculture Is 
Foremost in Magnitude and Im= 
portance. 

From the Congressional Record of April lo, 
1909. 
GILBERT N. HAUGEN, of Iowa. We 
are proud of our schools, temples of re- 
ligion, and the morality and industry of 
our people; that much of the time every 
energy is employed; that progress and 
prosperity are in evidence everywhere. 
Though at times there may be a tem- 
porary halt in our progress, it must be 
conceded that we are the most prosper- 
ous and happy people on earth; and it is 
every man's duty, no matter what his 
creed, political aflRliation, or occupation 
may be, to strive to benefit his country, 
to protect the weak, to relieve the dis- 
tressed, to uplift humanity, to promote 
civilization, progress, prosperity, and 
happiness; and all should give thoughtful 
and careful consideration in securing full 



benefit for our national resources, those 
developed mechanical appliances, the 
skill and genius of American labor, to 
see to it that no interest, individual, or 
concern is discriminated against or im- 
posed on; that each and all are given 
adequate Protection against any inva- 
sion of our markets by the products of 
foreign cheap and pauper labor, as well 
as against unscrupulous interests, cor- 
porations, or individuals that may com- 
pel anybody to pay an involuntary trib- 
ute, in order that we may have the 
fullest development of all worthy and 
legitimate enterprises. 

Our obligation is, and the proposed 
legislation offers an opportunity to re- 
deem our obligation and. platform 
pledges, to give the American wage- 
earners, manufacturers, and producers 
of farm products, in fact every worthy 
and legitimate entei'prise, a square deal; 
to justly, conscientiously, and promptly 
revise our Tariff laws in the interest of 
all the people. Whatever Tariff legisla- 
tion is enacted for the fostering of this 
Government, Protection must be honestly, 
faithfully, and effectively applied, so as 
to Protect, to build up, and strengthen 
every worthy and legitimate industry of 
this land and to lift our wage-earners to 
the highest level of profitable employ- 
ment. 

What industry is of the greatest im- 
portance? Of all our industries, agri- 
culture is. of course, foremost in magni- 
tude and importance. In fact, all wealth 
and prosperity springs from the soil. Ex- 
perience teaches us that when agriculture 
is dull no prosperity to other industries 
is possible. Prosperity, then, depends 
upon the prosperity of the tillers of the 
soil. 

The American farmer, then, is entitled 
to consideration; and there can be no 
justice in placing him on the level or in 
competition with the poorly paid labor 
of Europe, with the cheap labor of Egypt 
and India, thus depriving his product of 
his home market, which is the greatest 
market in the world. 

The Farmer's Share in Protection's Bene- 
fits. 

Much has been said about the American 
farmer not sharing in the benefits re- 
ceived from this Protective Tariff. Be 
that as it may, personally, I believe that 
the farmer has shared in the benefits that 
have come from this great Protective- 



128 



x^AUGEN. LENROOT. MADDEN. 



Tariff system. If not directly, at least in- 
directly. Through this great Protective- 
Tariff system which has brought about 
such substantial and marvelous results, 
we have built up great industries, until 
to-day we produce annually not only 
seven and three-fourths million dollars' 
worth of agricultural products, but up- 
ward of $20,000,000,000 of manufactured 
products. 

This has given employment to millions 
of wage-earners, and billions have been 
paid in wages under this Protective- 
Tariff system that would not have been 
paid had it not been for the encourage- 
ment given home industries. Under this 
Protective-Tariff system the wage-earner 
has been paid better wages than any 
wage-earner on earth, thus bringing the 
consumer of farm products closer and 
closer to the farm, not only saving the 
transportation charges to other countries, 
but furnishing the farmer consumers with 
greater purchasing powers and enabling 
him to sell not only at higher prices, but 
more of it, until to-day the American 
consumers are buying and consuming 
nearly everything, or more than six- 
sevenths of what the farmers produce. 

Democratic Policy Condemned by the 

Country. 

From the Congressional Record of April lo, 
1909. 

IRVINE L. LENROOT, of Wisconsin. 
It is to be regretted that the Democratic 
side failed to use the opportunity it had 
to aid in perfecting this bill and be of 
some real service to the country, but, as 
in the past, that party, loud in its profes- 
sions when seeking votes, could not unite 
its membership when the time came for 
action. 

The Democratic plan for Tariff revision, 
as evidenced by the motion to recommit 
this bill, is impracticable and visionary, 
and was condemned by the country by 
an overwhelming majority in the last 
election. 



Protection Affords Opportunities to 
All Classes of Our Citizenship. 

From the Congressional Record of April is, 
1909. 
MARTIN B. MADDEN, of Illinois. I 
am in favor of the adoption of the bill 
now pending before the House for a two- 
fold reason. 



First. I am in favor of its adoption 
because I believe that it will bring back 
those banner days of commercial su- 
premacy which the United States enjoyed 
following the passage of the Dingley 
Tariff bill, which brought great blessings 
and remained in full force and with un- 
diminished powers until the recent un- 
avoidable panic, the blighting ravages of 
which were so speedily and effectually 
checked by the wise, sane, businesslike, 
and apparently providential action of a 
Republican President, backed by a Re- 
publican Senate and House of Represen- 
tatives. 

Secondly, I want to hear the hum of 
the wheels of American industry. I want 
again to smell the smoke of commercial 
activity. I want to hear the rumbling of 
the wheels of factory and mill. I want 
to know that away down in the bowels 
of the earth, amid the grime and smoke 
and dirt and dust, there will be found 
the same light-hearted, well-paid, con- 
tented American wage-earner that is to 
be found in more favorable employment, 
and with less arduous duties to perform. 
I want them all to be equally happy. 

The American Laboring Man. 

I want the American laboring man to 
be the best-paid, the best-housed, the 
best-clad, and the most-contented person 
on earth; and the American laborer is the 
best-paid, the best-housed, the best-clad, 
and the most contented of his class that 
can be found anywhere upon the face of 
the earth. He receives from two to five 
times as much in exchange for his hire 
as is received by any like person in this 
broad universe, and he has been receiving 
said wage since the adoption of the Ding- 
ley Tariff bill, a Republican measure 
passed by a Republican Congress and 
signed by a Republican President. 

The laboring man who remembers the 
doleful years from 1893 to 1S97 needs no 
argument to convince him that the Re- 
publican policy of Protection is, when 
compared with the system which made 
those days a curse to American manhood 
and American womanhood, the most 
blessed and the most beneficent system 
ever adopted by man for the benefit of 
his kind. 

I am a Protectionist because I believe 
that Protection affords greater opportuni- 
ties to all classes of our citizenship than 
a Free-Trade or Tariff-for-revenue sys- 
tem can possibly give. 



MADDEN. PETERS. OR AH AIM. REEDER. 



129 



Faults of Tariff for Revenue. 

There has never been a time in this 
rountry. from its very foundation to the 
present time, when a Tariff-for-revenue 
policy was in existence that tlie country 
did not suffer commercial paralysis; and 
there never was a time following- the 
adoption of a Republican Protective- 
Tariff system that the country did not, 
under its stimulating and invigorating 
effect, take on new and increased ac- 
tivity. 

There are other good reasons why I am 
a Protectionist, Mr. Chairman, and why 
I favor the adoption of the bill we are 
now preparing- for final enactment into 
law, but I am particularly wedded to the 
system because of the Protection it af- 
fords the wage-earner. 

I do not want to_ live to see the day 
when the American working-man will be 
forced by legislation to accept the low 
wage scale of foreign Free-Trade nations. 

Tfie Way to Keep America Prosperous is 
to Keep American Workmen Employed. 

To do this we must prevent Europe 
from taking the American market. You 
can not employ men in European factories 
to make goods for American consumption 
without throwing American workmen out 
of employment. Wliat advantage is there 
in being able to buy foreign-made goods 
cheap if to do so we are first compelled 
to shut off the forge and the loom? What 
would it profit us to have Europe take our 
market while we are looking for theirs? 
The American market is the best in all 
the world. It amounts to $27,000,000,000 
per annum, while the export trade of the 
world, including the United States, 
amounts to but twelve billions annually. 
Do we want to give up the home market 
and take a chance on the foreign market? 
I hope not. It does not appeal to me as 
a wise suggestion. I am opposed to it. 
My plan is to keep the American work- 
men emploj^ed, pay them good wages, 
keep them happy, make it possible for 
them to buy the goods made by their fel- 
low-citizens — make the Tariff sufficient 
to protect the American workman, but not 
so high as to cause an inflation of prices; 
to be exact, I should like to see the Tariff 
just enough to make the difference In 
cost of production at home and abroad 
so that our workmen can find employ- 
ment in making goods for home con- 
sumption, hold the home market, and 



thus maintain the present standard of 
wages and living. 

I am a Republican and I believe in 
Protection, I am one of those who be- 
lieve in taking the responsibility placed 
upon us by our election. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] After having done 
so I shall be glad to submit my case to 
the good people of my district and abide 
the result of their verdict, whatever it 
may be. [Loud applause.] 



In Favor of Free Hides in Order to 
Protect the Consumer. 

From the Congressional Record of April 15, 
1909. 
ANDREW J. PETERS, of Massachu- 
setts. It is to Protect the consumers 
who pay the extra price of shoes, and to 
Protect one of the largest industries of 
this country and the thousands of its 
employees, tliat the demand is made for 
the retention of the provision of the bill 
putting hides on the free list and for the 
defeat of this amendment. 



Incidentally to Do the Most Good. 

From the Congressional Record of April 15, 
igog. 
JAMES M. GRAHAM, of Illinois. Mr. 
Chairman, I can scarcely hope to say 
anything new on the Tariff question, nor 
do I hope to be able to say the old things 
as well as they have been said. I am a 
very firm believer in the doctrine of a 
Tariff for revenue alone, but I believe 
that in raising the necessary revenue 
from imports care should be taken to so 
place the duty as to incidentally do the 
most good to such American industries 
as are least able to compete successfully 
with similar products of foreign make. 



The South Should Send Protection- 
ists to Congress. 

From the Congressio)ial Record of April 15, 
1909. 
WILLIAM A. REEDER. of Kansas. 
The gentleman from Texas started out 
with the proposition as a foundation for 
his excellent speech that the South nec- 
essarily ships two-thirds of its raw cot- 
ton across the ocean for a market. This 
is far from the truth. Instead of having 
men in Congress representing their fair 
land who base their fine logic and flow- 



130 



heeder. 



ing wit on false premises, careful thought 
would lead one to the conclusion that the 
people of the South should send ^men 
here who would look after their interests 
and see that those interests are Pro- 
tected rather than promulgate such ideas. 
The gentleman from Virginia has argued 
until the very close in favor of Protect- 
ing his people, and then he seemed to re- 
member some Democratic time-honored 
dogma and set the whole thing aside by 
saying they would devise some other 
method of taking care of the southern 
laborer. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Oh, no; I addressed 
you gentlemen as Representatives on the 
majority side of the House, simply asking 
you to be consistent and just. 

The South Is Negleciful of Her Interests. 

Mr. REEDER. I am with you as to 
that proposition, but it seems to me that 
both the gentleman from Texas and the 
gentleman from Virginia have indicated 
that the South is derelict in not sending 
Members here to represent them who 
will work to have their industries Pro- 
tected. 

I believe that your industries should 
be Protected, and I believe that they 
should be Protected to such an extent 
that your people would be more prosper- 
ous than they are to-day, and that the 
whole Nation would benefit by your in- 
creased prosperity. It is not necessary 
to ship two-thirds of the raw cotton raised 
in the South across the ocean for a 
market. If your people would reach out 
for the Protection of the cotton manu- 
facturer with the same energy that the 
western and northern people use in see- 
ing that the interests of their constitu- 
ents are looked after, the South would be 
much more prosperous, and every part of 
the Nation benefited vastly by the better 
market you would thus furnish for other 
nnanufacturers and for food products. 
One section can not be a laggard without 
injury to all. 

Mr. GLASS. Does the gentleman be- 
lieve in Protecting American industries 
because they are American industries or 
because they send Republicans here to 
Congress? [Applause and laughter on 
the Democratic side.] 

Constituents of Democrats Need Protec- 
tion. 

Mr. REEDER. I believe that the 
Democrats have made a failure in this. 



Their constituents need Protection, but 
the tenets of your party are such that 
you have got to make some excuse when 
you ask for Pi'otection. You worship 
party tenets so much you dare not go 
forward. You will not admit you have 
foresight. • You only use a hindsight, and 
your people continue to suffer stagnation 
for that reason. The South ought to send 
men here who want Protection and who 
do not fear to say so and work to get it. 

My friend Clark, the witty leader of 
the minority, says the Tariff is now pro- 
hibitive on cotton. The fact is, this state- 
ment is so far from the facts that nearly 
$95,000,000 worth of the products of your 
cotton, which you have shipped abroad 
in the raw state, came back in 1906 manu- 
factured, and paid nearly $40,000,000 
Tariff to get back to our markets. 
There is some difference between prohibi- 
tive tariff and ninety-five million imports; 
but what is ninety-five millions when a 
traditional Democratic policy is to be up- 
held? 

Mr. SABATH. Oh, the West wants 
Protection, and you are willing to vote 
for Protection, too. 

Mr. REEDER. The gentleman never 
saw a State more in favor of Protection 
of American labor than Kansas, and we 
have little direct Protection. 

Mr, SAUNDERS. If I will say what 
we want in the South, will you give it to 
us? 

Mr. REEDER. No; I would not like to 
say that. [Laughter.] I do not know 
you well enough. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. Mr. 
Chairman, I understand the gentleman 
from Kansas to say that we ought to 
manufacture all the cotton in this coun- 
try. 

Mr. REEDER. Yes; you ought to man- 
ufacture all the cotton needed in this 
country and much to sell abroad in the 
way of cotton goods. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. 
Does the gentleman want to help the 
South to build more cotton mills? 

Mr. REEDER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. 
Then, vote to reduce the enormous duty 
on cotton-mill machinery. [Applause on 
the Democratic side.] 

Not the Way to Do It. 

Mr. REEDER. I do not believe that is 
the way to do it. It does not profit to 
kill one industry and thus throw Ameri- 



REEDER. JOHNSON. 



131 



can laborers out of employment to build 
up some one else. That is Democratic 
doctrine. I want Americans to make that 
machinery, and I wish you people to be 
so Protected that you can afford to pay 
for the machinery and sell all of the cot- 
ton manufactures used in the United 
States and much elsewhere, and not have 
your Congressmen get up here and make 
speeches, with the foundation for such 
speeches the statement "that you, of nec- 
essity, have to ship your raw cotton 
across the ocean to find a market," 
though I concede this is Democratic doc- 
trine and usage. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. May I ask the gentle- 
man from Kansas a question? Does he 
think that I made out a pretty good case 
for the people in whose interests I have 
spoken? 

Mr. REEDER. Yes; until you get about 
through. Then you seemed to think you 
must preserve some Democratic prece- 
dents, or time-honored tenets, and backed 
up considerably. 

The Way to Have Goods Cheap. 

The facts are, the way to have goods 
cheap, money plenty, and farm products 
high is to so Protect manufactures as to 
have our goods made by our own people. 
See tin; first stage, tin made in Wales 
and high; second stage, a Tariff on tin; 
tin now made at home and cheap. Abra- 
ham Lincoln once said — he knew this 
much about a Tariff — when you buy goods 
made abroad you have the goods, but 
some one else has the money. "^Hien you 
buy goods at home we have the goods 
and the money. Even a Democrat ought 
to see the latter is the better condition. 

Mr. WEISSE. Does the gentleman be- 
lieve that this bill Protects American 
labor? 

Mr. REEDER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEISSE. Will the gentleman 
kindly explain to this House how the Re- 
publicans are Protecting labor when, 
through the drawback system of this bill, 
the foreign laborer can buy the products 
made by American labor cheaper than he 
can himself? How are you Protecting 
American labor by denying him the right 
to buy the work of his own hands as 
cheaply as the same can be bought by a 
foreigner? 

Mr. REEDER. You overlook the fact 
that he must have money to buy at any 
price, and the only source of money is his 
labor, It certain raw material is sent into 



this country and we pay a Tariff on it, 
and we can not pay that Tariff and have 
the labor done here and send the goods 
manufactured therefrom abroad and sell 
them, we had a good deal better rebate 
that Tariff than not have the work of 
manufacturing done by our people. 

Mr. REEDER. There is a good deal 
moro prosperity, in my judgment, in 
Texas and Florida than in most parts of 
the South. It is on account of their not 
paying so much attention to those "time- 
honored Democratic principles." They are 
working along the line of the advanced 
thought of the times. I commend other 
portions of the South to their example. 

Primal Mistake of the Democratic Party. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of South Carolina. The 
gentleman is talking about cotton. Now, 
I live in a cotton-manufacturing district, 
and I would like to say to the gentleman 
that It costs probably a million dollars to 
build a mill in South Carolina which could 
be duplicated in England for $600,000. 
That is because of the enormous duty 
that is placed on cotton-mill machinery, 
rubber belting, structural steel, and the 
material that we must buy to equip that 
plant. Now, does not the gentleman think 
that the building of a mill that will give 
employment to a thousand people for all 
time to come is such an industry that 
the New England manufacturers could 
afford to release their grasp on the ma- 
chinery that goes into that mill? 

Mr. REEDER. The Idea embodied in 
the gentleman's question is the primal 
mistake of the Democratic party. The 
gentleman virtually asks me this: If 
we have men working now in the manu- 
facture of machinery to put into cotton 
mills, and those men get $2 a day, would 
it not be better to make them take $1.20 
a day instead of $2? 

That is the mistake the Democratic 
party is making and always seems to be 
determined to make; that is. that we 
should lower the wages of our laboring 
men from $2 to $1.20 a day. Now, that 
would be a fatal mistake. I would rather 
see you pay for the mill a price which 
will Protect the laborers who are engaged 
in the manufacture of the machinery that 
goes into the mill and then raise the 
price on cotton products, so that where 
your laborers now get four or five dollars 
per month they will get ten or twelvQ 
dollars a month or more, 



132 



MORGAN. LAFEAN. 



To Meet the Difference Between 
American High Wages and Mexi- 
can Low Wages. 

From the Congressional Record of April 15, 
1909. 

CHARLES H. MORGAN, of Missouri. 
The ability of this country to produce 
sufficient ores to supply the demand for 
all the spelter consumed in this country 
can not be doubted after an examination 
of the question. Ever since the zinc in- 
dustries were established in this country 
our mines have produced all the ore re- 
quired for this purpose, and the output 
of the mines has kept step with the in- 
creasing use of zinc. During all the years 
we have mined zinc ores in the Joplin dis- 
trict we have kept in sight a surplus 
of ores in the bins; and time and again, 
to my personal knowledge, we have volun- 
tarily shut down our mines for a short 
period, for the sole purpose of reducing 
our surplus. It is not true, as stated on 
this floor, that the zinc smelter com- 
panies have been compelled to go to Mex- 
ico because the mines of the United 
States have not been able to supply the 
consumption of the country. They went 
to Mexico to avail themselves of cheaper 
labor and cheaper ores. In this connec- 
tion let me call attention to the fact that 
there are over 20 States in the Union now 
producing zinc ore. 

In many of these States the zinc-min- 
ing Industry is In its infancy, and it is a 
fact, as shown by government reports, 
that many of these, notably Wisconsin, 
Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Iowa, during 
last year largely increased their output 
over the preceding year. In some in- 
stances this increase was more than 100 
per cent. In the Joplin district the out- 
put can be largely increased, without the 
development of a new mine, by running 
at full shift those now being operated and 
starting up those now closed down, be- 
cause the buyers have gone to Mexico for 
their purchases. 

With the encouragement, by a duty 
equal to the difference between the cost 
of labor at home and abroad, no one can 
doubt for a moment the capacity of the 
mines in this country to produce all the 
zinc that can be consumed In thi.s coun- 
try, 

W« do not seek an unusuaJ or prohibi- 
tory Tariff, and only a.sk such a duty as 
sliall equal the difference in the wages 
paid to American miners and the lower 



wages paid to Mexican miners. [Loud 
applause.] 



Protection for American Tobacco 
Growers and Cigar Makers. 

Froyyi the Congressional Record of April 15, 
igog. 

DANIEL F. LAFEAN, of Pennsylva- 
nia. Is it fair to place the skilled, sober, 
honest, industrious, hard-v/orking cigar 
makers of this country on an equal level 
with the cheap oriental labor? If this 
schedule as embodied in this bill is 
adopted, what is there to prevent the to- 
bacco trust from investing capital to the 
Philippine Islands and because of the 
cheap labor and price of tobacco to 
manufacture a good grade of cigars, 
import them free of duty, and place them 
on the market of the United States at a 
much lower price than canour American 
cigar manufacturers produce a cheaper 
grade of cigars. 

This would result in driving out of bus- 
iness the smaller cigar manufacturers 
of this country. In my district it would 
mean the closing of hundreds of small 
shops. You can readily understand, 
therefore, why the cigar manufacturers 
and cigar makers of this country are 
fighting the free importation of this to- 
bacco. It means, as I have stated sev- 
eral times, placing their skilled labor In 
direct competition with the cheap ori- 
ental labor. 

Labor in the Philippines. 

Many of you are familiar with the cigar 
manufacturing plants (if they may be 
called such) of the Philippine Islands. 
Those Members of the Fifty-ninth Con- 
gress will recall the lithograph they re- 
ceived during that session of that Con- 
gress, whereon was depicted the true 
condition of the cigar makers of the 
Philippine Islands. You see hundreds of 
half-nude Filipinos and Chinese sitting 
on a rough board floor in a large open 
shed, using the crudest kind of imple- 
ments In the manufacture of tobacco. 
Just compare such a factory with those 
located In my district, where you will 
find large, modern, well-lighted and ven- 
tilated buildings, conforming to the re- 



LAFEAN. TAWNEY. 



133 



quirements of the factory laws of the 
State, and equipped with modern conven- 
iences for the comforts and benefit of 
the cigar makers, and that the cigar 
manufactured therein might be of the 
highest sanitary standard. 

During the past year, because of In- 
dustrial depressions, the cigar and to- 
bacco industries of this country have 
suffered greatly. Villages which were 
veritable beehives of cigar manufactories 
have practically done little or no business 
during the past j^ear, the residents 
thereof being compelled to seek employ- 
ment in other lines. 

Why Demoralize the Industry? 

Why still further demoralize the tobac- 
co Industry of this country by the ap- 
proval of this schedule in the bill? Again, 
the free importation of this tobacco, man- 
ufactured and vmmanufactured. would 
still further lessen the revenues of this 
country. The report of the honorable 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, shows 
a decrease of $1,833,259.84 in collections 
from cigars, a decrease of 5,930,342 
pounds in the quantity of tobacco and 
snuff withdrawn for consumption, and 
813,071 pounds exported and 14,646 im- 
ported. There was also a decrease of 
585,386,010 in the number of cigars tax 
paid and withdrawn for consumption. 
W^'hy, then, further decrease the revenues 
and threaten the labor of the American 
farmer and cigar maker? 

If Congress wishes to do any act of 
goodness to the Philippine Islands, why 
not place a higher Tariff on rice, thus 
not only Protecting the American rice 
growers, but removing any possible 
chance or hope of the Filipinos exporting 
rice to this country and compelling them 
to produce sufficient rice to supply their 
own demand instead of importing it, as is 
now the case? 

Why not encourage this people to pro- 
duce their own foodstuff instead of en- 
couraging them to grow tobacco and 
manufacture cigars to the detriment of 
our own people? I do not believe that 
we can afford to allow that part of this 
bill to go through at this time, and I 
hope that the House will see fit to strike 
out that part of the Payne bill referring 
to the commercial relations between this 
country and the Philippine Islands and 
not leave it to the Senate to kill, as was 
the case in the Fifty-ninth Congress. 



What Constitutes a Republican and a 
Protectionist? 

From the Congressional Record of April ig, 
1909. 

JAMES A. TAWNEY, of Minnesota. 
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the state- 
ment made yesterday on this floor by 
the distinguished gentleman from Mich- 
igan [Mr. Fordney] that I am neither a 
Republican nor a Protectionist, because 
I have asked for an opportunity to vote 
in favor of free lumber in order to deter- 
mine whether tlie House approves the 
judgment of the Committee on Ways and 
Means when, in the first instance. It 
placed lumber on the free list, or when, 
in the second instance, it transferred 
lumber from the free list back to the 
dutiable list, I, as a Republican and a 
Protectionist, offer this amendment. 

If to demand a duty on the unfinished 
product of an industry where It is con- 
ceded that the cost of producing that 
product is no greater here than It Is 
abroad — an industry whose raw material 
Is rapidly diminishing and can not be 
reproduced except by the joint action 
of God and man — for the purpose of 
giving to that industry a monopoly in 
the sale of its product In the American 
market, is Republican Protection, then 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford- 
ney] is entitled to the distinction of 
standing alone in his theory of what con- 
stitutes a Republican and a Protec- 
tionist. Let me say to him that that 
kind of Protection is not Republican 
Protection. It is monopolistic Protec- 
tion, and he is welcome to the distinc- 
tion of being the only Republican who 
advocates it. [Applause.] 

Public Sentiment Demands Removal of 
Duty. 

Mr. Clialrman, there is no schedule In 
the Dingley Tariff law that has contrib- 
uted more to the demand for a revision 
of the Tariff than the lumber schedule. 
There is no schedule against which pub- 
lic sentiment has crystallized as it has 
against the lumber schedule of the pres- 
ent Tariff law. Republican and Demu- 



134 



TAWNEY. 



cratic State conventions in different 
parts of the Union have declared in favor 
of free lumber. 

Mr. LANGLEY. Not all of them. 
Mr. TAWNEY. I did not say the Re- 
publicans of every State have declared 
in favor of free lumber, but Minnesota, 
Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, and the two Da- 
kotas, and doubtless others, have, while 
legislatures controlled by the Republican 
party have memorialized Congress in 
favor of free rough lumber. 

The sentiment of the people in respect 
to the lumber schedule has not been 
manufactured by men in Wall street or 
in the great commercial centers as it 
has been manufactured in respect to 
other provisions of the Payne bill. It is 
a genuine sentiment, growing out of the 
conditions under which lumber is now 
produced and sold to the American con- 
sumer. In view of the fact that this sen- 
timent is based upon conditions which 
justify placing lumber on the free list 
I believe it to be the duty of Congress 
to respect that sentiment by admitting 
free of duty all Canadian lumber. 

To justify Congress in doing otherwise 
the advocates of a duty on lumber must 
show that the cost of production here is 
greater than in Canada. This they have 
not done. To insist upon a duty without 
that condition violates the principle of 
Protection and does more to destroy the 
confidence of the people in its advan- 
tages and its benefits as an economic pol- 
icy than all the Democratic Free-Trade 
arguments that have ever been used to 
overthrow It. 



The Farmer Eniitled to Protection. 

I believe, and always have believed in 
the policy of Protection to American in- 
dustries and American labor, and there is 
no industry in this country that is more 
entitled to that Protection than our agri- 
cultural industry. There is no industry 
that contributes so much to the wealth 
and prosperity of the Nation as that in- 
dustry. To take from a branch of that 
industry the Protection" which has en- 
abled It to expand threefold in the last 
two decades, for the purpose of re-estab- 
lishing the malting industry in the State 
of New York, is unjustifiable. I therefore 
hope the duty on barley will be restored 
to a Protective basis. [Applause.] 

It Is true that the farmers of Minne- 
sota are greatly interested in continuing 
the present duty on barley or in secur- 



ing a sufficient duty to enable them to 
compete successfully against the Cana- 
dian product. Their interest in this ques- 
tion IS not wholly a selfish interest The 
majority of the people I have the honor 
to represent upon the floor of this House 
are Republicans and Protectionists. They 
believe in Protection because they know 
from experience that under this Republi- 
can policy they, as well as the entire 
country, have always prospered and that 
they have always enjoyed more of the 
comforts and even many of the luxuries 
of life than they have ever enjoyed under 
the Democratic Free-Trade Tariff policy. 

Object to Tariff on Lumber. 

While they - advocate Protection for 
things which they produce, they do not 
ask that the things which are produced 
by others and which they consume be 
unprotected from competition with for- 
eign producers where the cost of produc- 
tion abroad is less than it is here. They 
recognize that on the whole the Ameri- 
can standard of wages and living is far 
above that of any other country export- 
ing products to our market, and that this 
standard of wages and living can not 
be mamtained unless the difference in 
the cost of production here and in for- 
eign countries, whose standard of wages 
and living is below ours, is equalized by 
the imposition of a duty upon the foreign 
product when entering into the American 
market. 

But where there is an article like lum- 
ber, which enters so largely into the ag- 
ricultural industry, and when they know 
as they do, that the price to them of that 
product has enormously increased during 
the past few years, and that the cost of 
producing lumber is no greater here than 
in Canada, they naturally feel that Pro- 
tection to such an industry is not justi- 
fiable and this fact explains the uni- 
versal demand among the farmers for free 
lumber. If the same conditions existed 
h^r'''^'',^ ^° *^^ production and sale of 
barley, they would not ask, nor would 
1. as their Representative, insist upon 
an increase in this dutj-. Since these 
conditions are not the same, and the pro- 
posed duty of 15 cents a bushel on bar- 
ley would give the Canadian farmer an 
advantage in our market, I do insist that 
the duty should be increased, thereby re- 
movmg the inequality that would other- 
wise exist between the Canadian and the 
American farmer in the sale of thU 
product in the American market 



HUMPHREY. 



135 



Competition of Cheap Oriental Labor 
in British Columbia Mills. 

From the Congressional Record of April 19, 
1909. 
WILLIAM E. HUMPHREY, of Wash- 
ington. Mr. Chairman, a few days ago 
I attempted to bring to the attention of 
the House the conditions that exist upon 
the Pacific coast in Washington and 
British Columbia with reference to the 
employment of Orientals in the lumber 
and shingle mills. I believe that I dem- 
onstrated conclusively to any unpreju- 
diced mind, from the evidence before 
the Ways and Means Committee, that 
practically no oriental labor was em- 
ployed in >the lumber- and shingle mills 
of Washington, while more than 50 per 
cent of the labor in the lumber and shin- 
gle mills of British Columbia are China- 
men, Japanese, and Hindoos. I do not 
care to discuss this question further, but 
at this time I wish to speak upon the 
general question of the effect on the lum- 
ber industry of the removal or the re- 
duction of existing duties. 

More than 50,000 men in my district are 
employed in the manufacture of lumber 
and shingles. Twenty thousand more are 
directly dependent upon this business. 

Seventy Thousand Workers Who Voted for 
Protection. 

Seventy thousand men, 300,000 people, 
in my district are directly dependent 
upon this industry for their daily bread- 
more people by far than the average 
congressional district contains— and about 
three-fourths of those 70,000 men who 
voted, voted the Republican ticket, be- 
cause they believed that that party would 
be true to the principle of Protection 
and would Protect the industry that gave 
them their living. I do not speak for the 
man who owns the stumpage. He can, 
and will, care for himself; he has made 
vast fortunes in many instances. In this 
he has acted only as other men have 
:acted in other pursuits. He is not to be 
.condemned any more than the buyer of 
real estate or any other commodity is 
to be condemned. I do not speak for the 
logger. If you reduce the price he will 
see that all the burden does not fall on 
him. He, too, will care for himself. I 
do not speak for the lumber manufac- 
turer. He has generally made money, and 
■will look after his own interests" and see 
to it that any burden that comes from 



the reduction of the Tariff is not borne 
entirely by him. But I speak for the 
110,000 men working in the mills of my 
State, those who receive $75,000,000 per 
year in wages— 80 per cent of the entire 
value of the timber products. He is the 
one who will bear the heaviest burden. 
He receives 80 per cent of the value of 
the manufactured products, and you can 
rest assured that he will bear 80 per 
cent of the reduction in price. Does any 
man who has studied the history of this 
country doubt this statement? The la- 
boring man is the one who will have 80 
cents taken from him every time that a 
dollar's worth of lumber is purchased in 
Canada; taken from him and given to the 
foreigner; given to the Japanese, Chinese, 
and Hindoo. 

Labor and Forest Conservation. 

It is in behalf of labor and the con- 
servation of our forests that I especially 
desire to speak. If it were not for these 
two interests, it would not be vital 
whether the duty was retained on lum- 
ber or not.. But it is vital to my State 
that its labor be Protected, and it is of 
vital importance to the entire Nation that 
our forests be preserved. 

Will the reduction of the Tariff reduce 
the price of lumber to the consumer? 
There is no fact upon which to base such 
hope. If the Tariff is reduced a dollar, 
that dollar will be absorbed by the logger, 
the manufacturer, the transportation com- 
pany, and the retailer. This combina- 
tion has often absorbed far greater fluct- 
uations in the price of lumber than a dol- 
lar per thousand. In fact, the logger, the 
manufacturer, the railroads, and the re- 
tailer has often absorbed a fluctuation of 
from $3 to $6 per thousand without any 
material change in price to the consumer 
of lumber. The retailer seldom changes 
his price except in one way. The retailer 
is an emphatic believer in revision of 
prices upward. We import only 2 per 
cent as much lumber from Canada as we 
cut in this country. This Importation 
might be doubled under the dollar reduc- 
tion. Is it a proposition that appeals to 
the business judgment that 4 per cent will 
control the price of the 96 per cent, espe- 
cially as we have a far greater supply 
of timber than has Canada? 

Removal of the Tariff Would Not Cheapen 
Lumber. 

That the removal of the Tariff will 



im 



HUMPHREY. PRAY. 



cheapen the price is an iridescent dream 
of an overhopeful Imagination. Such a 
theory does not have a single illustration 
upon which to stand. It is not supported 
by the history of a single article in any 
schedule in all the different Tariff laws 
that have been written upon our statute 
books. I challenge any one to point to 
a single article upon which a Protective 
Tariff has been reduced that the price 
of the article was permanently cheaper 
to the consumer. Upon what theory that 
will appeal to the reason of men can it be 
hoped that lumber will be the exception 
to this rule? Just as certain as the sea- 
sons come and go and the world contin- 
ues to move in its accustomed way, just 
that certain will it be found that the re- 
duction of the Tariff did not reduce the 
price of lumber. Every man who believes 
that this will be the result will be unde- 
ceived and forced to admit his error if 
the Tariff upon lumber should be re- 
moved or reduced. 

If we are to manufacture lumber in this 
country as cheaply as it is done in Can- 
ada, it can only be done by lowering the 
wages of the laborer. Will the Republi- 
can party subscribe to this doctrine? It 
seems to me that I am justified in staling 
that this would not be for a moment con- 
sidered was it not that this industry is 
greatest in the far Northwest. 

To Protect Every Industry. 

"We on the Pacific coast are always 
asked and always expected to vote for a 
Tariff to Protect every industry in the 
United States, wherever situated, except 
our own; but when we come and plead 
for the Protection of our industry — our 
greatest, and in many of the localities 
our only industry, the destruction of 
which means absolute ruin, which 
means the destruction of our fer- 
tile farms and the turning of our splen- 
did cities into desolate places — we are re- 
fused, because, forsooth, it is claimed 
that those in the East and Middle West 
desire to buy their lumber cheaper. 

They say that the Tariff must be re- 
duced for the benefit of the farmer, and 
yet the farmer can take a bushel of 
wheat or a pound of beef and buy more 
lumber to-day than ever before. We are 
told that the laboring man has to pay a 
high price for lumber to construct his 
house, and yet his day's wages, kept high 
by the same system, will l)uy more lum- 
ber to-day than it would under that in- 



famy of delusion and disaster known as 
the "Wilson bill." Every one of the prod- 
ucts of the East that we in the State of 
Washington must buy is Protected by a 
high Tariff, and we are expected not only 
to buy these articles, but we are also 
expected to vote to keep the duty on 
them. We are expected not only to buy 
these high-priced articles in the East, | 

but to be thankful for the privilege. But ** 

when you are asked to buy an article 
from us that already has the lowest Tar- 
iff upon the statute books, then some of 
vou are ready to whine and complain, not- 
withstanding that the Protection of that 
industry means not only our prosperity 
but our very existence. Transfer this 
great industry from the Pacific to the 
Atlantic coast, and i-t would to-day be In 
the bill with double its present duty in- 
stead of half the present Tariff. Do you 
wonder that we upon the Pacific coast 
sometimes feel that we are not treated 
fairly? Some of you in the East and the 
Central West seem sometimes to forget 
that we are in the Union, that we are 
American citizens, and that we are under 
the flag. 

Results Certain to Follow. 

A few things about the reduction of 
the Tariff on lumber are absolutely cer- 
tain. The reduction will decrease the 
price of stumpage in this country. It will 
increase the price of stumpage in Canada. 
It will reduce the revenue unless impor- 
tation of lumber is Increased. If impor- 
tation is increased in this country, then 
that increase will measure just so much 
work and so much wages taken from the 
American and given to the foreigner — 
just so much money given to Canada that 
otherwise would remain at home. The 
waste of our timber will be Increased and 
the destruction of our forests greatly ac- 
celerated. The amount of work will be 
decreased, wages will be reduced, and the 
consumer will pay the same price for his 
lumber. These are the results that are as 
certain to follow the reduction of the Tar- 
iff as the night follows the day. 



What Is One Man's Raw Material Is 
the Finished Product for Another. 

From the Coiigressioial Record of April ig, 

1909. 

CHARLES N. PRAY, of Montana. In 

the discussion of this measure we have 

lieard a great deal about free raw ma- 



PRAY. ALDRICH. 



137 



terial and the finished product, respect- 
ively. It should not be forgotten that 
what is one man's raw material is the 
finished product for another. Wool Is 
the sheep raiser's finished product and 
hides the cattleman's. Under the equita- 
ble Republican policy both are entitled to 
Protection. They are the assets, or a 
considerable part of the assets, of the 
sheep farmer and the cattleman. To de- 
prive these of the Protection now given 
them, or by refusing to give them what 
they are entitled to, is to depreciate 
their market value and cut down the 
wages of men employed in producing 
them. This is so self-evident a propo- 
sition that it calls for no protracted ar- 
gument. 

With proper Protection the wool In- 
dustry of the country is comparatively 
prosperous; without such Protection It 
languishes. How important an industry 
it is; how. whether it flourishes or does 
not flourish, it affects every man, woman, 
and child, few people realize. The great 
Ways and Means Committee of this 
House deserves unqualified commenda- 
tion for the zeal, the patience, the pains- 
taking intelligence with which it has ap- 
plied itself to the inexpressively burden- 
some task of solving the many complex 
problems in the construction of a Tariff, 
and the result of its labors which we 
liave before us in this bill also merits our 
appreciative consideration. No Tariff has 
ever been framed, Mr. Chairman, that 
gave satisfaction to every interest af- 
fected by it. I venture to say none ever 
will be. Surely, the unexpected would 
have happened if the committee had 
brought forth a bill so perfect in all re- 
spects as to have commanded the ap- 
proval of everybody. Of course, I mean 
everybody Republican, for no one on this 
side ever imagined that the committee 
would be able to satisfy our Democratic 
friends in this regard. Having said this 
much, I address myself to the wool 
schedule, to point out in what it falls 
short of giving that measure of Protec- 
tion which, in my opinion, the wool- 
growers of the country have a right to 
claim. 

Protection Doctrine in 1860. 

Mr. Chairman, in the platform of 1860 
the Republican party made its initial 
declaration' in favor of a Protective Tar- 
iff policy in these words: 

That while providing revenue for the 
support of the General Government by 



duties upon imports, sound policy re- 
quires such an adjustment of these im- 
posts as to encourage the development 
of the industrial interests of the whole 
country; and we commend that policy 
of national exchanges which secures to 
the workingmen liberal wages, to agri- 
culture remunerative prices, to me- 
chanics and manufacturers an adequate 
reward for their skill, labor, and en- 
terprise, and to the Nation commercial 
prosperity and independence. 

That, sir, was the keynote for the eco- 
nomic policy of the United States, which 
for the last half century, with the inter- 
mission of the brief period of three years 
when the Wilson Tariff cast its blight 
over the land, has been the country's 
glory; which has brought prosperity un- 
paralleled in the history of the world; 
prosperity which is the envy of all na- 
tions; prosperity to the maintenance of 
which the Republican party is pledged. 
Those pledges have been quadriennially 
reiterated, and to this day the party has 
lived up to them. 



A Tariff to Raise Revenue and a 
Tariff to Reduce Revenue. 

From the Congressional Record of April ig, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. The Republican party has been 
assailed from every stump and in every 
part of the United States for extrava- 
gance, for the imposition of unnecessary, 
and therefore unjust, taxes upon the peo- 
ple of the country. What do we now 
see? Not an attempt to secure greater 
economy by the Democratic leaders In 
the Senate, but propositions to impose 
$120,000,000 of additional taxes; and for 
what purpose? They can have no other 
purpose, or perhaps I should say they 
could have no other effect than to pro- 
mote and incite further extravagance ~ in 
appropriations and in expenditures. 

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I assume 
that the Senator from Rhode Island does 
not desire to misrepresent my attitude. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not. I was com- 
ing to a statement which the Senator af- 
terwards made in submitting his propo- 
sition. 

Mr. BAILEY. Then I will refrain from 
further interruption until I see if the 
Senator from Rhode Island is as fair 
when he reaches that statement as he 
appears to be now. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I will try to do so. It 
is true that the Senator from Texas qual- 



138 



ALDRICH. HUMPHREY. 



ifled his statement about the $60,000,000 
of revenue that would be obtained from 
an income tax by saying that it was his 
purpose, if that should be adopted, to re- 
duce the taxes which are levied by the 
pending bill, or by existing law, upon 
other articles which might be designated 
as "articles in common use" or "neces- 
saries of life." Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. BAILEY. That is a fair state- 
ment. Not exactly, hut in substance. If 
I were permitted to control the procedure, 
I would make the two propositions in one 
motion. I would provide for the reduc- 
tion of the duties on articles of common 
necessity, and then I would supply the 
deficiency of revenue created by a remis- 
sion of those duties to the people by the 
levy of an income tax. Of course, if I 
could not have my way, then I would vote 
for each proposition separately. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I understand that to be 
the position of the Senator from Texas, 
and I desire very briefly to examine his 
proposition to reduce the taxes $60,000,000 
below the amount which it is estimated 
will be raised by this bill or by existing 
law. How will it be done, as a matter 
of practical operation? Can any one sug- 
gest to me any method by which it can 
be done? 

The Walker Free-Trade Idea. 

Robert J. Walker, in giving his idea of 
a revenue Tariff — and it is the idea of 
every man who has ever treated this 
question intelligently and from a logical 
standpoint — laid down the principle — 

That no duty be imposed on any ar- 
ticle above the lowest rate which will 
yield the largest amount of revenue. 

Consider that, gentlemen — 

That no duty be imposed on any article 
^i^ove the lowest rate which will yield 
the largest amount of revenue. 

If duties should be reduced in the pend- 
ing bill to that level, what would hap- 
pen? You would increase the revenues, 
instead of reducing them, and your 
income tax would be more unnecessary 
than it is at this moment, because you 
would have a large surplus revenue — 

It must be patent to Senators that if 
we are to reduce the rates imposed by 
the pending bill to a revenue basis It 
means an absolute increase of revenue 
rather than a diminution. 

One of Two Courses. 

The onfy way the revenue can be re- 



duced substantially is by adopting one of 
two courses — either by the adoption of 
prohibitory duties, which will stop the 
revenue, or by placing manufactured ar- 
ticles that compete with articles pro- 
duced in this country on the free list. I 
suggest that the Senator from Texas give 
that proposition his attention. That is 
the only way that the revenues to be de- 
rived from this bill can be reduced. There 
is, it is true, another method, adopted in 
the construction of the Wilson bill, the 
only De^mocratic Tariff with which this 
country has been cursed since 1846. What 
did that bill do? What was the effect of 
the legislation in that case? It did re- 
duce revenues. How? By putting out 
the fires and the furnaces and stopping 
the machinery of production; by pros- 
trating the industries of the United 
States and destroying the purchasing 
power of the American people. You can 
reduce expenditures by legislation which 
shall send this great and prosperous coun- 
try into a state of decay and dissolution. 
Are you gentlemen upon the other side 
ready to do this? 

Perhaps you would like to reduce the 
revenues for the purpose of imposing an 
income tax and thus taking the first steps 
for the destruction of the Protective sys- 
tem. That attempt has been made before; 
in fact, every time there has been a Re- 
publican Tariff measure before the Sen- 
ate, within my recollection. 

The traditions of your party, the inter- 
ests of the great American people are all 
against this policy of yours. I shall be 
very curious -to see what the Senator from 
Virginia and the Senator from Texas, 
with all of their ability and all of their 
ingenuity, can say in defense of the taxes 
— taxes which they seek to impose when 
there can be no necessity for their impo- 
sition. 



Free Coal Opposed as Contrary to 
Protection Doctrine. 

From the Congressional Record of April 20, 

WILLIAM E. HUMPHREY, of Wash- 
ington. Ml'. Chairman, it is almost be- 
yond the imaginatioii of a Republican 
and a Protectionist how a committee with 
the distinguished gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Payne] at its head aiid the 
di.stinguishcd gentleman from Penn.sylva- 
nia [Mr. Dalzell] its ranking member 
could bring in a bill containing a provis- 



HUMPHREY. 



139 



ion for fi-ee coal. I have been, from my 
youth up, imbibing my Protection faitli 
from tliose two gentlemen, and now, 
alas, it seems that they are straying from 
the path that they have so long taught 
me to follow. So near as I can ascertain, 
the truth is, that coal has been placed 
upon the free list for a purpose never be- 
fore followed in this countrj'. The object 
heretofore in placing an item on the free 
list has been to encourage the bringing of 
that article into this country, but it 
seems that the inspiration for placing coal 
on the free list, except as to countries 
that place a Tariff on our coal, was to 
compel Canada to admit our coal without 
duty into tliat country. In other words, 
coal has gone on the free list to help 
certain Pennsj^lvania coal companies to 
increase their trade with Canada. To do 
this the other coal interests of the coun- 
try and the interests of the consumers 
in this country have been sacrificed. 

Alaska Coal. 

The coal interests of the Pacific coast 
were not granted the opportunity to pre- 
sent their case to the Ways and Means 
Committee as fully as they should have 
been. The coal interest of Alaska, so far 
as I know, was not represented before the 
Ways and Means Committee by any one. 
The greatest known coal fields of the 
earth are in Alaska. Here is found a 
class of coal from the poorest to the 
highest, from the lignite and the bitumi- 
nous to the highest grade of anthracite. 
The anthracite coal fields of Alaska are 
greater than the famed ones of Penn- 
sylvania. 

The only first-class coal, so far as is 
known, on the Pacific coast is in Alaska. 
There is a sufficient quantity of coal in 
Alaska to supply the world for more 
years than have passed since man first 
produced the miracle of fire. These 
mighty Alaskan fields are as yet wholly 
untouched. Two railroads have each 
already expended about $5,000,000 in 
reaching these fields. A vast trade, im- 
measurable in its greatness, is awaiting 
this Alaska coal. The United States Gov- 
ernment now ■ sends to the Pacific from 
the Atlantic in foreign ships coal for the 
navy. These great fields of Alaska can 
furnish not only coal of all grades and 
varieties for the navy and for the Pa- 
cific coast States, but for all the nations 
bordering on that ocean. The work of 
developing these Alaskan coal fields has 



just begun. Free coal means the dea.th 
of railway construction in Alaska. Free 
coal means the death of Alaskan devel- 
opment. Free coal means the greatest 
Injury that that Territory has ever suf- 
fered. Already British Columbia sends 
coal to Alaska. With free coal the mighty 
fields of Alaska are doomed to lie un- 
touched. With Protection Alaska would 
soon supply all the vast trade of the Pa- 
cific Ocean. • Certainly the Ways and 
Means Committee could not have been 
familiar with Alaskan conditions, or coal 
would never have been placed on the 
free list. 

Tariff on Coal and the State of Wash- 
ington. 

The placing of coal on the free list 
means the practical destruction of the 
coal industry in Washington. It means 
the closing of the smaller mines. The 
facts upon this question are so clear and 
so easily demonstrated that it is hard 
to understand how a Republican Ways 
and Means Committee could ever for a 
moment have consented to place coal on 
the free list. It costs more to mine coal 
in the State of Washington than any 
place in North America outside of Alaska. 
On Vancouver Island, just across the 
British Columbia line, are coal mines 
that come in direct competition with the 
coal mines of Washington. 

The coal of these mines of British Co- 
lumbia is a little better grade than the 
coal of Washington. It costs less to mine 
it. It costs to inine a ton of coal in 
British Columbia $1.40, while in Wash- 
ington it costs $2.04. This difference In 
cost is lai'gely due to labor. Orientals 
are employed In the British Columbia 
mines, but none are employed in Wash- 
ington. In freight rates the mine owner 
of British Columbia has an advantage. 
It costs him but 75 cents per ton to bring 
his product to Seattle and the other ports 
of Puget Sound. In all the markets of 
Washington the freight rates are favor- 
able to the British Columbia dealer. In 
all American markets reached by water 
the British Columbia dealers have a great 
advantage, for they can use the foreign 
ship with its foreign crew of low-paid and 
poorly fed men, while the Washington 
owner can use only American ships. 
With better coal, easier mined, cheaper 
labor, and more favorable freight rates, 
how can anyone for a moment contend 
that the British Columbia coal will not 



140 



HUMPHREY. KORBLY. 



drive American coal from our markets, 
close our mines, and reduce the wages 
of the laborer? And what is the answer 
to these statements? No one will attempt 
to successfully dispute these facts. But 
the answer is that the people of Wash- 
ington will thereby get cheaper coal. Un- 
fortunately, the people of my State know 
tiiat this will not be the result. They 
have had the experience. A few years ago 
we had a great coal famine in the North- 
west. The conditions were most unusual. 
Our railroads were blocked. Appeals 
were made for troops to assist in mov- 
ing trains in order that coal might be 
supplied to keep the people from freez- 
ing. Not a bushel of coal could be ob- 
tained in Canada. The same condition 
existed on that side of the line. We had 
to depend upon our own mines. Without 
them our people would have faced untold 
suffering. We could have gotten no relief 
from British Columbia. 

If you reduce the Tariff on coal, not a 
single American consumer will be ben- 
efited. It was one of the greatest orators 
who exclaimed, "I know of no way to 
judge the ' future except by the past." 
That is the only light given to human 
reason in which events to come can be 
measured. Judged by that light, the re- 
moval of the Tariff on coal 

Can Bring But Disaster to This Country. 

We had free coal in the great emer- 
gency of 1902, but it did not cheapen 
the price of a single bushel that was 
brought into this country upon the Pa- 
cific coast, not one. 

In fact the price of coal immediately 
increased instead of being reduced. We 
had free coal, but the foreigner imme- 
diately raised his price. We reduced it 
under the Wilson bill, but not a single 
poor man saved one penny upon the coal 
that warmed himself and his family. 
Why will it be different now? What 
change has come in the law of human 
selfishness and greed? Wherein are the 
conditions different now than they were 
then? The conditions that we faced at 
that time were not theories or platitudes 
or Free-Trade dreams; they were living 
experiences, so recent that none have 
forgotten them. They were burned Into 
our memories by the suffering and dis- 
tress that we were forced to witness each 
day of the Wilson bill. With us it was 
not something to read about in some dis- 



tant land and moralize over, but what we 
experienced every day at home. 

For weeks before the Wilson law went 
into effect it was advertised that on that 
day British Columbia coal w^ould be sold 
in Seattle. When that day came the coal 
was there. For the first and only time 
in the history of our State we enjoyed 
the luxury of giving our money to the 
foreigner for foreign coal mined by for- 
eign labor. As long as memory shall 
last the people of my State will never 
forget what that luxury cost. One-third 
of our mines were closed, one-third of 
our miners were thrown out of employ- 
ment, looking for work, and those that 
remained had their wages immediately 
reduced 15 per cent. We paid during that 
trying time of idleness and rags $1,422,000 
in American money for foreign coal, 
every dollar's worth of which could have 
been produced in our own State. 

Lost One Mil/ion Five Hundred and 
Ninety Thousand Dollars In Wages. 

The miners of my Stale lost $1,590,000 
in wages. And did the foreigner reduce 
the price of coal? Not a single penny on 
a ton. Within three months he put the 
price back to the highest point and kept 
it there until the McKinley bill drove him 
from our markets. All the benefits of the 
reduction of the Tariff on coal went to the 
foreigner. All its poverty, its distress, 
and its curses fell upon us. Such was 
the result of 40-cent coal under the Wil- 
son bill. In those never-to-be-forgotten 
days a good meal could be bought for 5 
cents in the city of Seattle, but there 
were 3.000 people in that city who did not 
have the nickel. Two thousand men in 
that city were kept from starving by the 
grudging hand of charity. Twenty-five 
hundred people were patrons of free- 
soup houses, the only flourishing industry 
left by Democratic Free-Trade. Can any 
man tell me why these conditions will not 
curse us again if we have free coal? 
Will the result be different on this in- 
dustry, with free coal, from what it was 
under a reduction to 40 cents per ton? 
I challenge any man who calls himself a 
Republican to answer that question. 



Tariff Commission Not Wanted. 

Frotn the Congressiotwl Record of April 21, 
1909. 
CHARLES A. KORBLY, of Indiana. It 
Is idle to talk about settling this question 



KORBLY. MOFiGAX. 



141 



by referring it to a permanent Tariff 
commission. The proposition involved is 
that a committee of experts will deter- 
mine the amount of "Protection" needed. 
The defenders of the doctrine of the nat- 
ural rights of man will never subscribe to 
this proposition. The underlying princi- 
ple of American institutions is the innate 
capacity of the people to settle for them- 
selves all questions of government. This 
principle recog-nizes the certitude of rea- 
son and the natural dignity of man. Con- 
sequently this question will have to be 
settled by the people in the court of 
reason; and, In my opinion, they will 
never submit to a "committee of experts" 
questions which, in the very nature of 
things, and as a matter of right and duty, 
they must settle for themselves. 



Every Farmer Should Be a Protec- 
tionist. 

From the Congressional Record of April 21, 
1909. 
DICK T. MORGAN, of Oklahoma. Mr. 
Chairman, much has been said in the 
discussion of the pending Tariff measure 
about how the Tariff affects the farmer. 
Every effort has been made to make the 
farmers of the United States believe that 
the policy of Protection is detrimental to 
their interests. However sincere the gen- 
tlemen may be who utter such state- 
ments, I am confident the policy of Pro- 
tection is beneficial to the farmer, and I 
shall try to show this fact. 

Number of Farmers. 

In 1900 there were in the United 
States 10,381,765 persons, 10 years of age 
and upward, engaged in agriculture. At 
the same time and of the same age, 
there were 7,085,309 persons engaged in 
manufacturing and mechanical pursuits; 
5,580,657 persons engaged in personal 
service, including unclassified laborers; 
4,766,964 engaged in trade and transpor- 
tation; and 1.258,538 persons engaged in 
professional service. In the aggregate, 
there were in the United States in 1900, 
29,073,233 persons, 10 years of age and 
upward, engaged in gainful pursuits. 
Those engaged in agriculture constitute 
more than one-third of our great indus- 
trial army. Agriculture is the corner- 
stone of our strength and greatness. Any 
policy that does not give the farmer, as 
compared with others, a fair and just re- 
ward for his labor, industry, energy, and 



intelligence must inevitably result in dis- 
aster to the whole Nation. 

I want to discuss the question, Is a 
Protective Tariff beneficial to the farmer? 

The Farmer Should Be a Protectionist. 

If I did not believe this question 
should be answered in the affirmative, I 
would cease to be a Protectionist. I 
could not favor, advocate, or aid in per- 
petuating a policy or system that was 
inimical to the interests of the ten mil- 
lions of intelligent, progressive, and pa- 
triotic farmers of the United States. 

In my judgment every farmer should 
be a Protectionist, The farmers above all 
others should stand by the policy of Pro- 
tection. In the future, more important 
than in the past, the farmer will be in- 
terested in maintaining the policy of Pro- 
tection. To my mind there is no possible 
way the farmer can be benefited by tear- 
ing down the Tariff walls and placing our 
agricultural products and our manufac- 
tured products in free competition with 
the products of the world. 

The lowering of all our Tariff schedules 
to a revenue basis could have but one ef- 
fect — the increase of importations. In- 
deed, that is the object of a revenue 
Tariff — to get revenue. The Democratic 
idea is to abandon the principle of Pro- 
tection — to have a Tariff solely for rev- 
enue only. You can not increase the rev- 
enue by reduction of duties unless there 
is an increase in the importations of for- 
eign goods, wares, and merchandise. Sup- 
pose that by reducing our Tariff to a 
revenue basis, as advocated by the Dem- 
ocratic party, we double the amount of 
goods imported from foreign countries. 

The reduction of the Tariff could not 
increase the capacity of the American 
people to consume. The result would be 
that 

We Must Manufacture So Much Less 
Goods at Home. 

It we are to manufacture less goods, we 
must employ less men. The men whose 
services would be needed no longer in the 
manufacturing business must seek em- 
ployment in some other line. Where will 
they go? There is" but one place — to the 
farm. They then become competitors of 
the farmer. Before they were his custom- 
ers. They were employed at good wages, 
they had money to buy, they had to live, 
and they were able to live well and pay 
the farmer fancy prices for his products. 



142 



MORGAN. 



So the process would go on, ever increas- 
ing competitors and decreasing the cus- 
tomers of the farmer. 

The lowering of duties to a Tariff-for- 
revenue basis means larger importations 
and consumption of foreign-made goods, 
wares, and merchandise, and a corre- 
sponding reduction in the amount of such 
products manufactured at home. This 
means the employment of a less number 
of men in our mills, factories, and manu- 
facturing establishments. The natural and 
inevitable result is to decrease the num- 
ber of men employed in nonagricultural 
pursuits and increase proportionately the 
number of men employed in agriculture. 
This process can not possibly benefit the 
farmer. The farmer, from a selfish stand- 
point, is interested in increasing as rap- 
idly as possible the number of men in 
this country who are not engaged in ag- 
riculture. They are his customers. They 
consume his products. The farmers, like 
men engaged in other lines of business, 
are interested in having as many cus- 
tomers as possible. The more customers, 
the greater the demand. The farmer now 
constitutes about one-third of our popu- 
lation. 

Has Increased His Customers and De- 
creased His Competitors. 

The reduction of the number of farmers 
from one-third to one-fourth of our popu- 
lation would unquestionably decrease the 
supply. Increase the demand, and advance 
the prices of farm products. This is what 
the farmer wants — from a selfish stand- 
point. In other words, the farmer is In- 
terested in increasing the number of his 
customers and decreasing the number of 
his competitors. This is what the policy 
of Protection to American industries has 
been doing. Through great industrial de- 
velopment we have built up great cities. 
The millions in our great cities are the 
customers of the farmers. As a result of 
this wonderful development of our manu- 
facturing trade, transportation, and com- 
mercial interests, the farmers have been 
called upon to give their sons and daugh- 
ters to the nonagricultural classes. Their 
own children have become their custom- 
ers instead of their competitors. This 
has been favorable to the farmers in this, 
that it has decreased the number of 
farmers and increased the number of non- 
farmers. 

Many have tried to determine why peo- 



ple were leaving the farms and going to 
the cities. This is easy. The policy of 
Protection has done it. Men would not 
leave the farm to go to cities unless em- 
ployment was offered; they wouid not 
go without favorable inducements In 
trade, in commerce, in business, in man- 
ufacturing, and in the professions. Baclc 
of all this great movement toward our 
cities has been our policy of Protection 
to American industries and to American 
labor. 

Free public land in the West has been 
the one thing that has enabled the farm- 
ing interests to keep pace with our man- 
ufacturing Interests. Free homestead land 
has drawn and held to the farms millions 
that otherwise would not have become or 
remained farmers. But the free lands, 
suitable for general farming, are no 
more. Henceforth the growth of agricul- 
ture and the increase of agricultural 
products must come largely through bet- 
ter methods, improvement in machinery, 
enrichment of soil, economical manage- 
ment, and greater knowledge of the sci- 
ence of agriculture. 

The farmers above all others should 
stand by the policy of Protection, because 
under this policy in the future, more than 
In the past, proportionately there will be 
fewer farmers and more of the nonfarm- 
ing class. In other words, the continua- 
tion of the policy of Protection means to 
the farmer from year to year more cus- 
tomers and fewer competitors. This 
means a general and continual advance 
in the prices of farm products. This 
means greater profits for the farmer. 

Farmer Wants Best Customers. 

The Protective Tariff not only gives 
the farmer more customers, but it gives 
him better customers. Better custom- 
ers, because they have more purchasing 
power and are nearer to the farmer. 

The farmers of the United States have 
at home the best customers in the world 
— customers with the highest purchasing 
power aud with the greatest capacity as 
consumers. They eat more and better 
food; they wear finer clothes; they live In 
more comfortable houses; they have bet- 
ter furniture In their dwellings; they have 
more of the comforts as well as the lux- 
uries of life; and live upon a higher plane 
than the customers and consumers of the 
farmers of any other nation in the world. 
Tliis is demonstrated clearly by the indis- 
putable fact that the scale of wages In 



MORGAN. 



143 



the United States, on an average, is 
from two to three times higher than the 
scale of wages of Great Britain, Germany, 
and France, the three greatest nations of 
Europe. I submit hei'ewith a table, taken 
from official sources, giving the scale of 
wages per hour in the United States and 
in Great Britain. Germany, and France. 
The table is as follows: 



Plant Factories Beside the Farm. 

No intelligent American farmer will vol- 
untarily exchange customers with the 
farmers of other nations. The sensible 
American farmer will continue to vote 
for a policy that guarantees to him as 
customers wage-earners who receive from 
100 to 200 per cent higher wages than do 



Wages per hour, 190S. 

United States. Great Britain. Germany. 

Blacksmiths $0.2951 $0.1740 $0.1237 

Boilermakers 2848 .1719 .1123 

Bricklayers 5472 .2062 .1328 

Carpenters 3594 .2028 .1301 

Compositors 4467 .1795 .1411 

Hod carriers 2863 .1250 .0849 

Iron molders 3063 .1787 *.1140 

Laborers 1675 .1019 .0797 

Machinists 2707 .1677 .1310 

♦In 1900. 



France. 

$0.1629 
.1455 
.1325 
.1544 
.1303 
.0965 
.1310 
.0965 
.1326 



the wage-earners of any other country of 
the globe. 

It is a great advantage to the farmer 
to have his customers at home. They 
should be as near his farm as possible. 
Every farmer knows the importance of 
having a farm within a reasonable dis- 
tance of our great cities. This gives the 
farmer a market at his door. This not 
only saves large expense in transporta- 
tion charges but it enables the farmer to 
market products which are of a perish- 
able nature. 

Best Market in the World. 

The policy of Protection gives our farm- 
ers the best market in the world. It is 
a Protected market. The Dingley law 
and the provisions in the Payne bill now 
under consideration give ample Protec- 
tion to virtually every farm product. The 
Free-Traders and low Tariff advocates 
sneer at the provisions in this bill that 
place a duty upon the imported products 
produced by the farmers. This, however, 
is not argument. The fact is that the 
farmers of the United States are greatly 
benefited and will be greatly benefited 
by the Tariff placed upon imported farm 
products. To take the duty off of farm 
products and ©pen our ports to the free 
importations from the countries sur- 
rounding us, would unquestionably work 
to the injury of the farmers of the United 
States. 

Canadian Competition. 

North of us is the Dominion of Canada. 



with probably 2,000,000 farmers. Within 
500 miles of the border of Canada are 
situated most of the great cities of this 
Nation — New York, Boston, Philadelphia, 
Pittsburg, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, 
Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. 
Paul, and Minneapolis. In this same 
belt are many other cities with 100,000 or 
more population. The duty taken off of 
farm products would invite the farmers 
of Canada into these great markets, now 
preserved for the exclusive use of the 
farmers of the United States. These 
great markets would be tempting to the 
farmers of Canada. Being so close to 
these great cities, the farmers of Canada 
would have an advantage over the farm- 
ers of the great Southwest. A better mar- 
ket for the Canadian farmer would give 
a great impetus to Canadian agriculture. 
The farmers of Canada would increase 
their products to a large extent. These 
great cities, constituting the main mar- 
ket of the farmers of the United States, 
would be flooded with products of the 
farms of Canada. The farmers of the 
United States will certainly rue the day 
when they vote for a policy that gives 
special encouragement to the farmers of 
Canada to extend their farms and in- 
crease their products for consumption in 
the American market. 

What is said of Canada maj' be said 
of Mexico, all the South American States, 
Australia, and Russia. 

Farmers' Surplus Sold Abroad. 
The advocates of a Tariff for revenue 



144 



MORGAN. ALDHICH. 



only repeat the charges that the duty 
upon farm products is not advantageous 
to the American farmer because the sur- 
plus products of the farmer are sold 
abroad in competition with the farm 
products of all other countries. They de- 
clare that the price abroad fixes the 
price at home. The farmers of the 
United States should not be deceived by 
this oft-repeated statement. 

It must be remembered that the farm- 
ers of the United States in 1907 exported 
only 14,5 per cent of their products. 
They have a home mai'ket for 85.5 per 
cent for all the products they produce. 
The export of farm products consists al- 
most entirely of cotton, wheat, corn, and 
meat products. It is true that these are 
staple products, but, nevertheless, these 
products are but a small per cent of the 
total products of the farmers of this coun- 
try. Farmers must bear in mind, how- 
ever, that they can not secure any ad- 
vantage by a policy that will increase the 
amount of their surplus products which 
they must export, and will decrease the 
amount of their products consumed at 
home. 

Increase of Importaiions Can Not Benefit 
the Farmer. 

The farmers of the United States could 
not be benefited by a change of policy 
that would compel them to seek a market 
abroad for 50 per cent of their products, 
instead of 15 per cent of their products. 
The larger importations of manufactured 
groods, wares, and merchandise into the 
United States, brought about by the re- 
duction of the Tariff to a revenue basis, 
could not benefit the American farmers. 
To increase the importations of manufac- 
tured goods means to increase exporta- 
tions of farm products. More and more 
this would place the American farmer in 
competition with the farmers of Canada, 
Mexico, Australia, Russia, and other for- 
eign countries. 

We Prosper Together. 

The farmer can not prosper unless there 
Is general prosperity. There can not be 
general prosperity without the farmers 
share therein. The farmer is Interested 
In the prosperity of the 7,000,000 men en- 
gaged in manufacturing and mechanical 
pursuits. He is vitally concerned In the 
welfare of the 5,000,000 engaged in per- 
sonal service, including the unclassified 
laborers of our land. His interests de- 



mand that tlie 5,000,000 mei^ engaged in 
trade and transportation shall be amply 
rewarded for the capital invested and the 
labor performed. Finally, the farmer 
wants to see the million and a quarter of 
men engaged in professional service fairly 
recompensed for time and talent ex- 
pended. All these men are the farmer's 
customers. Their misfortunes are his 
misfortunes, their poverty is his poverty, 
their want is his want. The farmer can 
not grow rich unless his customers are 
prosperous and able to buy his products 
at good prices. 



The South Wants Cotton=Seed Oil 
Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of April 21, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH. of Rhode 
Island. There is no doubt whatever 
that under the Senate committee's bill 
cotton-seed oil will pay a duty of 25 per 
cent ad valorem. Under the bill as passed 
by the House it was on the free list. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. May I ask the Sen- 
ator from Georgia a question that is per- 
tinent right here? I understand the Sen- 
ator from Rhode Island to say that the 
House placed cotton-seed oil on the free 
list. 

Mr. ALDRICH. It did. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. And the Senate 
committee fixes a certain duty. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Twenty-five per cent 
ad valorem. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Which does the Sen- 
ator from Georgia recommend? 

Mr. BACON. I am sure I do not know. 
I want some information from the com- 
mittee. I do not know whether there is 
any importation of it. I do not think 
there is. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I understand the 
Senator does not know at this time 
whether he is in favor of free cotton- 
seed oil or not. 

Mr, BACON. It depends a good deal on 
circumstances. There are circumstances 
under which I would not favor it. If 
there is no cotton-seed oil imported. I 
.'•ee no reason why it should not be on the 
free list, 

Mr. AIvDRICH. I have information now 
in regard to cotton-seed oil, and I think 
I will bring it to the attention of the 
Senator from Georgia. 

The importations of cotton-seed oil for 
the year 1908 were 202 gallons, valued at 



ALDRlCn. TILLMAN. 



145 



$81, upon which a duty of $8.38 was col- 
lected. 

Mr. BACON. I think it had better be 
put on the free list, then. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Does the Senator sug- 
gest that it go on the free list? 

Mr. BACON. I will wait until we get 
to it, though I see no objection to its 
going there. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Every man in the 
South who produces cotton or who pro- 
duces cotton-seed oil is extremely anx- 
ious that it shall not go on the free list. 

An Industry Which Should Be Protected. 

There was produced In 1905 in the 
United States 133.817.772 gallons of cot- 
ton-seed oil, valued at $31,341,912. The 
present duty upon cotton-seed oil is 4 
cents per gallon, which is prohibitory. The 
duty now suggested is 25 per cent ad 
valorem, which is put on this article as a 
Protective duty to prevent the importa- 
tion into the United States of cotton-seed 
oil produced in Egypt or in any other 
Country that is now producing cotton, and 
which, so far as I am concerned, I will 
defend against all comers. I think it is 
an important American industry. It is 
an industry which should be Protected, 
and, so far as I know, the producers of 
cotton-seed oil in the South desire to have 
it Protected. 

Mr. President, there are many duties 
imposed by this bill the effect of which 
has been to stop importations. The re- 
duction of that duty, even to the extent 
of 10 per cent, might bring about a state 
of affairs which would destroy every 
American industry. I do not mean to say 
that the cotton-seed oil industry would 
be destroyed if the duty were reduced be- 
low 25 per cent, but I see no reason — and 
I trust the Senators upon the other side 
see no reason — why we should make an 
experiment and reduce the duty on cot- 
ton-seed oil below the Protective rate. 

Mr. TILLMAN. The cotton-seed oil 
producers do not want any Protection on 
it. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I dislike very much to 
repeat a private conversation; but I think 
that what I am about to allude to is so 
pertinent that the Senator from South 
Carolina will forgive me if I mention it. 

Mr. TILLMAN. Surely. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from South 
Carolina brought to me three gentlemen 
yesterday or to-day 

Mr. TILLMAN. Yes. 



INIr. ALDRICH. To talk to me about 
the rate on some oil products. 

Mr. TILLMAN. No; they wanted to 
talk to you about a rate on oleostearin. 
which is a by-product of the slaughter of 
beef cattle, and is used in the manu- 
facture 

Mr. ALDRICH. It is an oil product. 

Mr. TILLMAN. It is used in the man- 
ufacture of compovmd lard; and the cot- 
ton-seed oil people want it to go on the 
free list. 

Large Producers Asked Protection. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I understand all that; 
but one of those gentlemen represented 
the largest producers of cotton-seed oil in 
the United States"; and we have on record 
with the Committee on Finance the 
strongest possible protest from two of 
the gentlemen that the Senator presented 
to me against reducing the duty on cot- 
ton-seed oil or putting it on the free list. 

Mr. TILLMAN. That may be. It is be- 
cause they, along with others of the 
South, imagine that there is some Pro- 
tection to American industry — for in- 
stance, in the manufacture of cotton. We 
have got factories in South Carolina 
whose product was almost wholly ex- 
ported to China until the rebellion over 
there several years ago, which disrupted 
the commercial relationship; and those 
people were in favor of a Protective duty 
on cotton, but the people of the South do 
not want it. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I 
wanted to bring to the attention of the 
Senator from South Carolina by witnesses 
of his own production the fact that the 
producers of cotton-seed oil in the South 
do object to having it put upon the free 
list and insist upon having a duty im- 
posed upon it. 

Mr. TILLMAN. That may be, but I do 
not represent any such people. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Wanted, Illumination As to Principles. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I have 
sometimes had doubts whether the Sen- 
ator from Nevada [Mr. Newlands] had 
any authority to represent either the 
Democratic party or any progressive ele- 
ment of the Republican party. He is 
anxious about principles. I wish he would 
illumine the Senate briefly, if he can, as 
to what are the joint principles of the 
gentlemen to which he has alluded. What 
would they do in a concrete case? For 



146 



ALDRICII. CLAYTON. KElFER. 



instance, take the duty on bofax at 150 
per cent ad valorem. What would the 
Senator suggest as a practical question 
about borax? Would hd assume from the 
fact that there is 150 per cent ad valo- 
rem upon It, it ought to be put upon 
the free list? Would he suggest that the 
duty should be reduced so low that the 
mines and the borax producers in Nevada 
should be wiped out completely and the 
foreigners should be given the benefit of 
the great market of this country? What 
are the joint principles of this new coali- 
tion which the Senator from Nevada is 
going to lead? 

I hope they will be disclosed, that the 
Senate and the people of the country may 
know upon what principles this combi- 
nation is to be held together. 



The Tariff Bill That Was Approved 
by George Washington. 

From the Congressional Record of April 22, 
1909. 

HENRY D. CLAYTON, of Alabama. 
The hearings befoi'e the Ways and 
Means Committee of the Sixtieth Con- 
gress, page 7592 and following pages, 
will tend to show how little the work- 
ingman gets out of a Republican Tariff. 

Mr. KEIFER. I ask the privilege of 
reading three or four lines of the opening 
sentence of the first general law 

Mr. CLAYTON. Oh, I am perfectly fa- 
miliar with that. 

Mr. KEIFER (continuing). Passed by 
the Congress of the United States by a 
unanimous vote of the Members of that 
Congress; being the preamble to a bill 
that was approved by George Washing- 
ton, in which 

Mr. CLAYTON. I hope the gentleman 
will not make a speech — read. 

Mr. KEIFER (continuing). It was sta- 
ted that the bill was to encourage and 
Protect American manufactures. 

Mr. Clayton. If the gentleman wants 
to read, he can read. 

Mr. KEIFER. I will read it. 

Mr. CLAYTON. Now. read it. I do not 
want to hear any harangue, but I am 
willing that the gentleman should read. 

Mr. KEIFER (reading): 

"Whereas it is necessary for the sup- 
port of the Government, for the dis- 
charge of the dobts of tho ITnitod 
Statos and the encouragement and 
Protection of manufactures that duties 
be laid on goods, wares, and merchan- 
dise imported." 



Mr. CLAYTON- I will ask the gentle- 
iiian what was the average rat^ of that 
Tariff bill? 

Mr. KEIFER. It was to Protect Amer- 
ican manufactures, and it was the first 
bill for a general law approved by George 
Washington, then President of the United 
States. 

Mr. KENDALL. I desire to inform the 
gentleman from Alabama that there Is 
no idea in Iowa that Is not in favor of 
Protection to the Ameiucan industries. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 

Mr. CLAYTON. I refer the gentleman 
to your distinguished Senator from Iowa, 
Senator Cummins, and let you and him 
wrestle with the difference between the 
Republican Tarift and his idea, that he 
wants to lower yotir Protective prohibi- 
tive tvall, so that competition from 
abroad may come in and drive the trusts, 
who sheltered themselves behind that high 
wall of Protection, from place and power, 
to enable the consuming American peo- 
ple to buy what they need in the differ- 
ent articles of life at a reaeonble price. 
[Applause on the Democratic side.} 

What Governor Cummins Said. 

I want to say to the gentleman from 
Iowa that I am told that the same gen- 
tleman, now in the Senate, Senator Cum- 
mins, has said that the Tariff has robbed 
the American people of more than a bil- 
lion dollars a year. He said so, so I am 
told; and if this statement be not accu- 
rate, I ask you now to contradict it. 

Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I chal- 
lenge the statement of the gentleman 
from Alabama. 

Mr. CLAYTON. The challenge does not 
go. If we want to pass a challenge, you 
and I might meet on the outside and 
fight it out. [Laughter.] Is it so or is it 
not? Now, confess that it is so or that 
it is not so or that you do not know, 
like the answer that the average Re- 
publican gives. 

Mr. KENDALL. I have too much con- 
fidence in his good sense to believe that 
he made the statement imputed to him 
by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Clayton]. 

Mr. CLAYTON. I do not know whether 
he said it or not. It was quoted in the 
public prints. 

Mr. KENDALL. In what paper? 

Mr. CLAYTON. I do not recall that. 
God forbid that I should ever try the case 
by Republican utterances. 



CLAYTON. BAILEY. ALDRICH. 



14^? 



Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. If the gen- 
tleman from Alabama [Mr. Clayton] will 
yield to me, I will state precisely what 
Senator Cummins said. He said 

Mr. KENDALL. I would like to in- 
quire of the gentleman if he is reciting it 
from memory or reading it from manu- 
script? 

Mr, CLARK, of Missouri. I am not 
reading it from manuscript, but I would 
not forget it in a thousand years. It was 
published in the American Economist 
and divers papers. He said this: That 
all the robberies committed by all the in- 
surance companies for all time did not 
equal one -fifth of the amount that the 
American people were robbed of every 
year under this High-Protective Tariff 
system. [Applause on the Democratic 
side.] 



The Republican Party Was Pledged 
to Revise the Tariff from a Pro- 
tective Standpoint. 

From the Congressional Record of April 22, 
igog. 

JOSEPH W. BAILEY, of Texas. When 
you levy a tax in this bill three times 
as great as the one in the old law, you 
have not kept your promise to the 
American people to revise the Tariff in 
the interest of the consumer, or down- 
ward, or to revise it. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, where 
did we ever make a statement that we 
would revise the Tariff downward? 

Mr. BAILEY. I did not say that. I 
made three statements. I said whether 
you would revise it downward or revise 
it in the interest of the consumer or re- 
vise it. I was trying to cover the Dem- 
ocratic and Republican statement, too; 
and certainly the Senator must have per- 
ceived that, when I said it in three dif- 
ferent forms. I will ask the Senator if 
his party did not pledge themselves to 
revise the Tariff? 

Mr. ALDRICH. They agreed to revise 
the Tariff upon the basis of rates which 
would equal the difference in cost of pro- 
duction between this country and abroad, 
with a reasonable profit. 

Mr. BAILEY. There is not a Senator 
here, there is not an intelligent man in 
this country, who will venture to say that 
if the Republican party had aflJirmed its 
belief that the present law levied duties 
too low and that they intended to revise 
it and to increase those duties — there is 



not a man in this Chamber who will stand 
up and say he believes that the Ameri- 
can people would have elected a Repub- 
lican majority to the other House of Con- 
gress. 

The People Understood That the Republi- 
can Party Was a Party of Protection. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The people of the 
United States, if the Senator will permit 
me, understood very well when the recent 
election took place that the Republican 
party was a party of Protection 

Mr. BAILEY. That is true. 

Mr. ALDRICH (continuing). That It 
was bound to revise the Tariff from a 
Protective standpoint, and to make rates 
in every case to equalize the difference 
in the cost of production in this country 
and in competing countries abroad, plus a 
reasonable profit. If there is any item 
in this bill as reported by the Finance 
Committee that exceeds that rule or does 
not come up to it, it ought to be made 
to conform to the rule. 

The Republican party holds the com- 
mission of the people of the United States 
to revise the Tariff upon those lines, and 
upon no other; and I should consider 
myself recreant to my trust If I did not 
follow implicitly those lines, let them 
strike wherever they may. If there is a 
rate of duty in this bill that does not give 
to the American producer of an article 
which is entitled to Protection a guar- 
anty of the difference in the cost of pro- 
duction, I am for amending the bill 
whether the rate is the establishe'd rate 
or another. 

Mr. BAILEY. I was not without war- 
rant in saying that the Republican party 
meant, or at least it desired the country 
to understand that it meant, that the 
Tariff revision which it promised the peo- 
ple was a revision toward the bottom and 
not toward the top. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I was 
a Protectionist before the adoption of the 
Chicago platform. I expect to remain a 
Protectionist as long as I shall live, be- 
cause I believe that that policy Is the 
only correct policy for the people of the 
United States to adopt and to maintain. 

Increases Few, Reductions Many. 

The Senator has referred to the Inter- 
pretation of the Chicago platform given 
by the President of the United States. I 
agree fullj'- with that interpretation. A 
majority of the members of the Commit- 



148 



NELSON. GALLINGER. 



tee on Finance agree fully with that in- 
terpretation. The number of advances in 
the bill now before the Senate above the 
rates now in force is verj- few. Tlie 
Senate to-day has been considering two 
of tliem in one paragraph? Why? Be- 
cause conditions have been changed. To 
use the language of the President, con- 
ditions have changed since the act of 
1897 was passed, which makes the revis- 
ion in this paragraph necessary. The 
Senator will find very few examples in 
the bill of any increases of rates above 
the act of 1897. 

The Senator asked me about the free 
list. We have put upon the free list sev- 
eral articles that were not in the act of 
1897. Taken as a whole, the bill incor- 
porates large reductions throughout its 
length below the existing law, and if 
this revision becomes a law, as I cer- 
tainly hope it will, it will be an answer 
to the pledge of the party to which I be- 
long and an answer to the demands, as 
I understand them, of the American peo- 
ple. 



Disappointed Because He Thinks the 
Rates Too High. 

From the Congressional Record of April 22, 
1909. 

KNUTE NELSON, of Minnesota. There 
has been practically no reduction in 
rates. In a few instances there have been 
trifling cuts; in a few other instances 
there have been slight increases. Take 
these schedules: Cotton and manufac- 
tures of cotton, 53.38 per cent; earthen, 
stone, and china ware, 58.56 per cent; 
glass and manufactures of glass, 53.22 
per cent; manufactures of wool, 89.42 per 
cent. Of all the schedules of this bill the 
highest by all odds in every way, taking 
them in the aggregate and in detail, are 
these four schedules — cotton; earthen, 
stone, and china ware; glass; and the 
manufactures of wool. 

I can only say to the members of the 
Committee on Finance that I am greatly 
disappointed that they have made no ef- 
fort in any respect to effect any particu- 
lar reduction in the four schedules to 
which I have referred. These industries, 
of cotton manufacturing, woolen manu- 
facturing, glass manufacturing, and 
earthen, stone, and china ware man- 
ufacturing, have been under high Protec- 
tion for years. The statistics show that 
they practically control the market. There 



were in 1907 only between seven and eight 
million dollars' worth of wools imported 
into this country, practically showing that 
we have a complete monopoly of the 
home market. That is all right; but why 
should we continue this excessive duty? 
The paragraph that I have asked to have 
passed over provides an ad valorem rate 
of CO per cent. 

Former Tariff Reduction Closed the 
Woo/en IVIills. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I want to ask the 

Senator if he has reached a conclusion 
as to how great a cut, for Instance, 
should be made in the duty on wool and 
woolens? 

Mr. NELSON. I called attention to the 
duty on woolens. If the Senator from 
New Hampshire will bear with me, I 
will say that I think the duty on raw 
wool, on scoured wool, apd on washed 
wool could well bear a fair reduction; but 
just how much I do not know. WTiat I 
criticise more particularly — and I call the 
attention of the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire to the fact— is the duty on woolen 
manufactures. The Protection on raw 
wool is only 40.93 per cent, whereas the 
Protective duty on manufactures of wool 
is 89.42 per cent, almost 50 per cent more 
duty on manufactured wool than on the 
raw material. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Well, Mr. President, 
that discrepancj', I think, will be found in 
every schedule. I want to say to the 
Senator that we all remember the agita- 
tion for reduced duties on wool that oc- 
curred a few years ago. We had a very 
great reduction made in the woolen 
schedule. It was hailed with joy all 
over the country as an improvement in 
our Tariff legislation, and it was claimed 
in Democratic circles that it would 
greatly redound to the benefit of the 
working people. 

Mr. NELSON. I want to remind the 
Senator that that is exactly the same 
spirit that actuates New England now 
in asking for free hides. They want free 
raw materials. 

Low Duties Brought Disaster. 

Mr. GALLINGER. THe result of that 
agitation and that legislation, Mr. Presi- 
dent, was that every woolen mill in New 
Hampshire closed its doors, and every 
workingman in those .mills was out of 
employment. I do not know that the 



NELSON. GALLTNGER. 



149 



Senator wants a reduction equal to what 
was made in the Wilson Tariff law. 

Mr. NELSON. Let me ask the Senator 
if he does not think that the manufac- 
tures of woolen goods can bear a reduc- 
tion from the present duty of 89.42 per 
cent? 

Mr. GALLINGER. I do not know how 
that may be; I have not made a very 
careful inquiry into it. I know, how- 
ever, that the woolen industry is not very 
prosperous at the present time In New 
England, notwithstanding the Senator 
may think to the contrary. But I do 
know that we had disaster, so far as the 
woolen industry was concerned and so 
far as the sheep-raising industry was con- 
cerned, under the agitation for low duties 
on wool and woolen goods from 1894 to 
1897, and we do not want to see that con- 
dition repeated. 

What Caused the Panic of 1893. 

Mr. NELSON. You can lay a good deal 
to the Tariff of 1894. It was not alto- 
gether the Tariff of 1894 that brought 
about the hard times. They came largely 
from the financial panic that occvirred In 
1893. Let us be fair and candid. While 
the Tariff cut some figure, it was the 
panic in 1893 that brought stagnation, 
just as in the case of the panic of 1907, 
from which we are still suffering. Can 
you ascribe that suffering and what oc- 
curred in the panic of 1907 to the Tariff 
law? The Dingley law has been in force 
during all that time. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, con- 
ditions were very different. The Senator 
himself said that the panic of 1907 was 
a financial panic, and I understood him 
to suggest that it originated in Wall 
street. It is a pretty well-known his- 
torical fact that the conditions that ex- 
isted from 1894 to 1897 were due to the 
Tariff law that was put on the statute 
book by the Democratic party. 

Mr. NELSON. Not wholly. We had a 
panic in 1893, a monetary panic, more 
acute in some respects and lasting longer 
than the panic of 1907, growing out of 
the silver issue. 

It Was Well Understood that We Were 
to Have a Democratic Tariff Law. 

Mr. GALLINGER. And when that 
panic occurred it was well understood 
that we were to have a Democratic Tariff 
law, which we had and which brought 
about the condition I suggested. 



Mr. NELSON. While I do not justify 
the law of 1894, I want to be fair enough 
and manly enough to say that all of the 
stagnation that prevailed during those 
dreary years fi'om 1893 to 1897 and 1898 
was not altogether owing to that law. 
It was more owing to the vicious condi- 
tions under which our currency existed. 
It was on account of that as much as on 
account of the Tariff. 

I would no more think of charging the 
Dingley Tariff with the panic of 1907 
than would the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire. You can not charge that. Would 
you charge the panic of 1907 to the Ding- 
ley Tariff law? 

Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator said 
it was a Wall street panic; that It had 
no reference to our 

Mr. NELSON. I am putting the Sena- 
tor from New Hampshire on the stand. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I will take the Sen- 
ator's statement on that point. He prob- 
ably knows what he is talking about. He 
says it was precipitated by Wall street— 
for the purpose of the millionaires of 
Wall street. I do not know. 

Mr. NELSON. What is the Senator's 
opinion? 

The Stagnation Disappeared. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I have no opinion 
about it. If the Senator will permit me, 
I wish to call his attention to the fact 
that the stagnation which he admits ex- 
isted from 1894 to 1897 very rapidly dis- 
appeared when we passed the Dingley 
Tariff law and men were given employ- 
ment. Then our mills were opened. 
Every woolen mill in New Hampshire and 
throughout New England began giving 
emplo3^ment to men. 

Mr. NELSON. That helped us. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Yes. 

Mr. NELSON. But in the meantime 
we disposed of the silver question by the 
election of McKInley. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Yes. 

Mr. NELSON. We had burled forever 
the doctrine of free silver, and that more 
than anything else— more than Tariff 
legislation— restored confidence to the 
American people. 

Now, let the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire be a little candid. The facts were 
that the business world in 1894. 1895, and 
1896 was afraid of silver monometallism. 
The money of the country went into hid- 
ing—was put away in old stockings and 
bureaus, and not put Into active use — 



m 



NiELSON. SCOTT. GALLINGER. DOLLIVEE. 



because the men who held the money had 
the fear that if Bryanism and free silver 
prevailed, they would have to take the 
money back in depreciated dollars. 

Mr. GALLINGER. But, Mr. Presi- 
dent 

Mr. NELSON. But as soon as it was 
announced that McKinley had been 
elected, and that we would stamp out 
the silver heresy and settle upon a sound 
financial basis, prosperity began to come 
to the country, even after election day, 
six months before we enacted our law. 

The Silver Question Had Nothing To Do 
With the Panic. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Senator is surely 
aware that the silver question was not an 
issue in 1892, 1893, and 1894. 

Mr. NELSON. I say in 1896. 

Mr. SCOTT. We had the panic before 
that; that is, one panic. That disposes 
of your argument in that respect. 

Mr. GALLINGER. If the Senator will 
permit me — and that is the only observa- 
tion I care to make — it is to my mind 
a new theory which the Senator evolves, 
that our troubles from 1893 to 1897 were 
due to the agitation of monometallism. I 
think it had as much to do with it as 
the last eclipse of the moon. 

Mr. NELSON. What about the moon? 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. GALLINGER. I will repeat it for 
the Senator's benefit. I think the silver 
question had as much to do with the de- 
pression in business, after the enactment 
of the Wilson Tariff bill, as the last 
eclipse of the moon, and nothing more. 

The truth is, and history bears it out, 
that our rates of duty were reduced be- 
low the Protective point. Our industries 
went out of existence; our workingmen 
were thrown out of employment; and we 
had disaster such as I think the Senator 
does not want to see repeated. 



Why the Glass Industry Should Be 
Amply Protected. 

From the Congressi&tial Record of April 22, 
1909. 

NATHAN B. SCOTT, of West Virginia. 
In cut glass the great injustice that has 
been done the American manufacturer 
has been, of course, not in the workings 
of the Protective Tariff on that article, 
but by the rascally Importers. 

While there was a classification of com- 



mon glass at a less rate of duty, the im- 
porter in New Yoi'k would have that ar- 
ticle roughed; he would have it put on 
the second stone; he would have it put 
on the third stone. There it was, 90 per 
cent of the cutting done upon that article. 
He would bring it in as common glass, 
take it to a glass cutter, polish it, and 
have a finished article. That was the 
great injustice done to the manufacturers 
of this country; and I am glad that this 
provision of the bill is just as it is, and 
it is only right and only fair, not only 
to the manufacturers of glass, but to the 
consumer, Mr. President. 

I appeal for justice to the consumer, 
because that enables us to produce and 
to give them an article at a lower rate 
than if we did not have that Protection. 

Further along, Mr. President, I shall 
perhaps have something else to say on 
this subject. 

Duties Might Be Reduced. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, I do 
not wish to be put in the attitude of 
criticising the earthenware and glass 
schedvile. Within my own lifetime those 
industries have been built up in the 
United States, and nothing has more com- 
pletely illustrated the practical wisdom 
of our theory of Protection than these 
industries. I have been especially glad 
to see them grow because of two things. 
In the first place they deal with a very 
crude and primitive material, every- 
where abundant in the United States. 
The entire business is a labor proposi- 
tion; and then again they are in a sense 
manual industries. I do not think very 
much progress has been made in the sub- 
stitution of automatic machinery for the 
old-fashioned methods of producing glass 
and pottery. The industries have grown 
in the United States, and they ought to 
grow, because tliere is hardly a part of 
our country which is not filled with an 
abundance of this material. 

Seeing that the industry has been es- 
tablished, seeing that it has grown up and 
fulfilled all the prophecies that we have 
made ,with respect to it, seeing that we 
make now, out of the common clay, earth- 
enware and pottery useful and orna- 
mental and beautiful, and seeing that this 
glass industry has gone into nearly every 
section in the United States, the only 
question I have had is whether we might 
not with wisdom and without damaging 
the Protectiye doctrine remit somewhat 



gMOOT. ALDRiCH. 



151 



these duties, if for no other purpose than 
to give an advertisement of the influence 
&nd effect of our Protective system and 
philosophy; 

A company with Which I was connected 
twenty-five years ago shipped from fifty 
thousand to seventy-five thousand doliai's' 
W'orth of goods to Germany and other 
European Countries, because our appli- 
ances, such as molds and processes; wer^ 
not known specially to the German peo- 
ple; but as soon as the shrewd Germans 
and other foreigners were informed of 
what we were able to do by these im- 
proved appliances, the shrewd Yankees 
who had produced these appliances were 
unable to export goods, and they went 
over to that country and sold their molds 
and their processes and their appliances 
for making glass over there. Then, as 
soon as the foreigners had those appli- 
ances, they could send the goods back to 
us if it was not for the Protection given 
by the Republican party through the Pro- 
tective Tariff. ...-^.,^ift;. 



Wf 



To Save an Industry from Absolute 
Destruction. 

From the Congressional Record of April 22, 
iQog. 

REED SMOOT, of Utah. In paragraph 
408 there will be found an item of postal 
view cards, on which the rate was 5 cents 
a pound. Would the Senator, if we could 
prove to him that it was absolutely neces- 
sary to save that industry from . absolute 
destruction to increase the rate 400 per 
cent, vote for such an increase? 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I would investigate it 
with very great care. 

Mr. SMOOT. I will ask the Senator, if. 
after he had made a full investigation, 
with very great care, he found that it 
was absolutelj^ necessary to so increase 
the rate, would he then vote for it? 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I would hesitate a 
while. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. How would the Sen- 
ator prove the cost of such cards there 
and here? 

Mr. SMOOT. I can bring the Senator, 
if he so desires, from 50 to 100 invoices 
of these very postal view cards of Wash- 
ington City that have been made in Ger- 
many, and they are flooding this country 
from one end of it to tlie other. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Valued where? 

Mr. SMOOT. Valued in New York City. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. The point, Mr. 



President, bf all these tiufcstions, of course 
— i will not t)ui'su6 it further— Clearly Id 
to show that when you use the legal word 
"proof,'' you have no such proof before 
you. You have ex parte testimony, and 
that is the best you can have. I make no 
quarrel about it, because Up to this time 
that is thd only kind of froof we have 
had. That does hot apply to thi^ cage 
more than it does to others. 

Mr. SMOOT; t want to say -■ 

Mr. BEVERIDGE; What the country 
wants are thei facts; 

Mr. SMOOT. I want to say that a 
manufacturer in Germany will not con- 
tinue to sell the goods at a loss for a 
period of four or five years; and if the j 

actual invoice of the German manufac- || 
turer and the American purchaser is not '■ 

evidence as to what they sell those postal 
cards for, I do not know where on earth 
you would find it. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Where would you 
find evidence as to the cost here? | . 

"^ Mr. bOLLiVEFi; if w6 have an in- 
dustry here that requires a Protection 
of four or five hundred per cent, I believe 
it would be cheaper, unless the industry 
is very lai^ge and involves a great multi- 
tude of people, to send some detective 
over there to see how they manage the 
thing. 

Mr. SMOOT. I do not know whether 
the Senator desires me to answer that; 
but I can tell him one thing as to how 
they manage it. They manage it, in the 
first place, by paying the laboring man 
one-fourth of what he is paid in this 
country. 



No Increase of Duties in the Woolen 
Schedule. 

From the Congressional Record of April 22, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. The Senator from Iowa was a 
Member of the House of Representatives 
in 1890, as I recollect, when the McKinley 
bill was passed, though I think he was 
not then a member of the committee 
which framed it. The rates upon woolen 
cloths were substantially identical in the 
McKinley act with those in the Dingley 
act and the rates reported by the Senate 
committee. 

The criticisms in which the Senator 
has just now indulged were heard from 
every Democratic Member of the House 
practically, and every Demiocratic Mem.- 



152 



ALDRICII. DOI.LIVER. WARREN. 



ber of the Senate; but I have never heard 
that the Senator from Iowa raised his 
voice in accord with those criticisms, or 
that he liad done anything else except 
to defend and vote for those schedules 
with which he has recently discovered so 
much fault. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. On the contrary, my 
discovery of faults has not been recent, 
if my honorable friend will permit me. 
For many years it has been a growing 
conviction with me that the Protective- 
Tariff system, in order to be perpetuated 
in the United States, must be made more 
reasonable; and when I first entered the 
Senate, now nearly nine years ago, I ven- 
tured to express that modest conviction, 
although it was "a voice crying in the 
wilderness." 

Senator A ///son's Posit/ on. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The McKinley and 
Dingley bills were taken up by a commit- 
tee of which the former Senator from 
Iowa was a member. If there was any 
man who ever understood the woolen 
schedule, it was the late Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Allison, and while there was 
an "Iowa idea" in -regard to the Tariff, 
and there were certain people in Iowa 
Who did not agree with the former Sen- 
ator from Iowa, I never classed the 
present Senator from Iowa in that cate- 
gory. 

Mr. DOLL,IVER. Mr. President, if my 
honored friend will permit me, I got into 
trouble here once by commenting upon 
the views and opinions of a man who had 
passed out of the noise of our controver- 
sies, but if I never in this world have any 
other sin to answer for than the sin of 
ignoring the judgment and opinions of my 
former colleague in this House, I shall 
stand acquitted on the last day. I shall 
not discuss his views, but I undertake to 
say that in the last twenty years, while 
lie was compelled by the very situation in 
which he was placed to co-operate in the 
preparation of these Tariff schedules, his 
opinion was that we had managed in 
some way to get the duties on woolen 
cloths on a scale entirely too high for 
the welfare of the Protective-Tariff sys- 
tem. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I will 
put my information on that subject 
against that of the Senator from Iowa. 
I was associated with the late Senator 
Allison for twenty-seven years as a mem- 
ber of the Finance Committee of this 



body. I was closely associated with him 
in the preparation of every Tariff bill 
which was ever reported to the Senate 
during that time, and no political ex- 
igency of the hour ever caused him to 
change his opinion upon this question. 

Cr/t/c/se t/)e Woo/en Schedu/e. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, even if 
it were true, as I shall undertake to dis- 
pute on a subsequent occasion, that 
Senator Allison was heartily in favor of 
these high rates on woolen goods, I would 
not regard that as binding either upon 
my conscience or upon my judgment. I 
propose here, without asperity either In 
heart or in speech, to state my own views 
and my own convictions in respect to this 
matter. I shall undertake when the 
woolen schedule is properly before us not 
only to criticise it but to offer the Senate 
an opportunity to correct what I regard 
as damaging inequalities that have grown 
into it. 

Nor is it necessary to quote what hap- 
pened in 1897 or in 1890. My honored 
friend could have gone further. The 
fabric of the Protection of woolen mer- 
chandise was built long before 1890. I 
am told that it appeared here in 1861; it 
is certain that the exact framework of 
our present schedules applicable to woolen 
cloths appeared in 1867. So far as I can 
find out, although I am not an acute stu- 
dent of the hidden things of history, a 
meeting was held in the Senate between 
the shepherds and the woolen manufac- 
turers, and, the shepherds being ex- 
tremely anxious for substantial rates, it 
was after a while agreed between them 
that each should take what he wanted; 
but the public was not present in the 
conference, so far as the record dis- 
closes. I propose in this session of the 
Senate — I may fail; I do not know how 
that will be — but I propose to reopen 
that conference and introduce into it an 
element which was not present when the 
original fabric of these schedules was de- 
vised. 

F/ght/ng for Better Protect /on. 

Mr. WARREN. I did not exactly catch 
all that the Senator said. In connec- 
tion with what Tariff and in what year 
was the meeting between the shepherds 
and the woolen manufacturers to which 
ho refers? 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I think it was in 1867. 

Mr. WARREN. I have only a word to 



ALDRTCTI. LAXGLEY. 



153 



say. While it is evident that that was 
before my day in the Senate, it was not 
before my day in the slieep business or 
in the wool business, and it was not bo- 
fore my day of meeting with other shep- 
herds. If there was an agreement of that 
kind, I never heard of it; and I know I 
was down here fighting for better Pro- 
tection for the woolgrowers, and that we 
were not satisfied with what we got. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I may have been de- 
ceived by a myth and a tradition, but 
if I have, it has deceived a good many 
other people. I will say to my friend 
from W3'oming that I am not here com- 
plaining about the duties on wool. I know 
that, while we have not succeeded in 
producing all the wool we need, we have 
succeeded in conferring a very substan- 
tial benefit upon a portion of the coun- 
try somewhat unsuited to ordinai-y agri- 
culture; and I have never grudged the 
mountain States the advantage which has 
come to tliem from our laws in respect to 
the Tariff upon wool. 

Simply Reiterating Democratic Claims. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I suppose the Senator 
from Iowa is aware that he is not the 
original investigator along these lines. 
The statement which he has just made 
has been made, iterated and reiterated 
over and over again in this Chamber and 
in the other Chamber, by every orator 
who has spoken against the duties on 
woolens or wool. It is simply reiterating 
to-day the Democratic claims which have 
been current in this country for a genera- 
tion. 



In Calculating upon Future Republic 
can Victories Look Well to the 
Southland. 

From the Congressional Record of April 23, 
1909. 
JOHN W. LANGLEY. of Kentucky. 
Mr. Chairman, I am a thorough believer 
in the American doctrine of Protection 
to American industries and American 
labor. I believe in a Tariff for Protection, 
with incidental revenue, rather than a 
Tariff for revenue with incidental Protec- 
tion. If this declaration places me in the 
class of the "standpatters," then I have 
no objection to the designation, for I do 
"stand pat" upon that proposition. So 
firmly convinced am I that this policy of 
Protection is the correct one, and that 
without it our country covild not enjoy 



that degree of prosperity that its re- 
sources entitle it to enjoy, that I am 
ready to cast my vote for reasonable Pro- 
tection to any industry in this country, 
whether it exists in my district or not. 
And herein lies, I think, the main dif- 
ference between genuine Republicans and 
that class of Democrats who are not un- 
alterably opposed to the application of 
the principle of Protection to any In- 
dustry. We believe in Protection to 
American industries, while they seem 
willing to vote against Protection except 
when it applies to industries in their own 
particular locality. In view of the various 
declarations of the Republican party on 
this subject, I can not understand how 
any one can claim to be a Republican un- 
less he favors the principle of Protection, 
independent of the mere question of rais- 
ing revenue. It may be that the Tariff 
schedules can be so adjusted as to give 
adequate Protection to every industry and 
at the same time raise approximately 
enough revenue for government purposes 
and no more. 

Protection First; Revenue a Secondary 
Consideration. 

But I for one would not abandon the 
policy of Protection merely because there 
might be too much or too little revenue 
raised by proper Protective duties. If the 
proper enforcement of that policy re- 
sulted in raising too much revenue, I 
would have the surplus used for needed 
public improvements, such as the build- 
ing of turnpike roads and the more rapid 
development of our waterways. If it 
did not raise enough revenue, I should 
favor the raising of the balance by in- 
creasing the tax on beer and whisky, and 
by taxing incomes, and in such other 
ways a« would place the burden of gov- 
ernment expenses upon those who are 
able to bear it rather than upon those 
who are not able to bear it. 

So much has been said in this debate 
by gentlemen on the other side of the 
Chamber about this question, and they 
have taken so many conflicting positions 
on the question, that it is difficult to tell 
whether Democracy stands for Protection 
or Free-Trade, or a revenue Tariff, re- 
gardless of whether such a Tariff affords 
Protection or not. 

My friend from Louisiana [Mr. Rans- 
dell], who has just taken his seat, and 
who, I think, is a typical representative 
of the Democracy of his section, evi- 



154 



LANGLEY. SCOTT. 



dently believes in the principles of Pro- 
tection — in spots at least. On the other 
hand, the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Sisson], who is a good Democrat, 
and who is certainly a good fellow, evi- 
dently takes the Free-Trade view of it. 

Republican Prospects in the South. 

It was the doctrine of Protection that 
made West Virginia as solidly Republican 
as is the Keystone State. It was the doc- 
trine of Protection that has made Mary- 
land a doubtful State. It was the same 
doctrine that brought Missouri and Ken- 
tucky into the Republican column and 
that has created the magnificent Re- 
publican armies in Tennessee and North 
Carolina, which, at no distant da3^ will 
lead them also into the Republican col- 
umn. 

I beg my Republican brethren of the 
North to consider this phase of the ques- 
tion, which, in my judgment, it is not 
only politic to do but their duty to do, 
in dealing with the industries of the 
South — not the "new South," as some 
gentlemen have termed it, but the "old 
South" emerging from the prejudices and 
passions engendered by the war and the 
questions preceding it and getting back 
to her old status again. Let us help 
her onward along the highway of prog- 
ress, and even if some of her Representa- 
tives do protest against it, let us treat 
them in that spirit which found expres- 
sion in the beautiful words of the Mas- 
ter, "Father, forgive them, for they know 
not what they do." 

My Republican brethren of the North, 
let me give you this parting admoni- 
tion: In calculating upon future Republi- 
can victories look well to the Southland. 
I predict that the time will yet come 
when you will take off your hats to "old 
Kentucky" or to some other good Repub- 
lican southern State for saving your na- 
tional ticket from defeat. [Loud applause 
on the Republican side.] 



The South Will Soon Be as Insist 
tent on a Tariff as New England 
Once Was. 

From the Congressional Record of April 27, 
J909. 
NATHAN B. SCOTT, of West Virginia. 
The Southland sees ahead of her nothing 
but prosperity under a Protective Tariff. 
In the past thirty years she has made 



marvelous strides. She has developed more 
rapidly in manufactories than any other 
portion of our country. Right in the 
midst of the great raw material of the 
United States, notwithstanding the fact 
that the large majority of her statesmen 
have spent days and nights opposing Pro- 
tection, she has developed, and will soon 
be the great manufacturing section of 
this country. Despite the doctrines of 
Free-Trade and Tariff for revenue only; 
despite the fact that in the past she has 
accepted the fads of other localities even 
after they were tested and abandoned 
elsewhere; despite the fact that she has 
been used to great disadvantage by other 
sections, she has prospered and developed 
and soon will be as insistent on a Tariff 
as New England once was. At no dis- 
tant day you will find the people of the 
South sending to Congress Members who 
will be the strongest Protectionists this 
country has ever produced. 

Blaine's Definition of a Free-T radar and 
a Protectionist. 

You remember that Blaine, in his 
"Twenty Years in Congress," referred to 
the fact that Webster was a Free-Trader 
until conditions changed in Massachu- 
setts. As it became evident it was going 
to become a manufacturing State, he 
then changed to a strong Protectionist. 
On the other hand, Calhoun, believing 
that the South was going to be a manu- 
facturing part of our country, was a 
strong Protectionist; but when he found 
the South had turned to agriculture and 
New England to manufacture, he also 
changed his position and became a Free- 
Trader. Blaine says: 

The American Protectionist does not 
seek to evade the legitimate results of 
his theory. He starts with the proposi- 
tion that whatever is manufactured at 
home gives work and wages to ovu' own 
people, and that if the duty is even put 
so high as to prohibit the import of the 
foreign article, the competition of home 
producers wrll, according to the doctrine 
of Mr. Hamilton, rapidly reduce the 
price to the consumer. 

Further on he says: 

Free-Traders do not, and apparently 
dare not, face the plain truth— which Is 
that the lowest priced fabric means the 
lowest priced labor. On this point Pro- 
tectionists are more frank than their 
opponents; they realize that it consti- 
tutes, indeed, the most Impregnable de- 
fense of their school. Free-Traders have 
at times attempted to deny the truth 
of the statement, but every impartial 
investigation thus far has conclusively 
proved that labor is better paid and the 



SCOTT. ELKINS. 



155 



average condition of the laboring man 
more comfortable in the United States 
than in any European country. 

Protection Works Alike Everywhere. 

Mr. President, I do not desire to dis- 
cuss in detail the question of Protec- 
tion, Free-Trade, or a Tariff for revenue 
only. My position is well known. Be- 
fore this honorable body some years ago 
I gave in full the reasons for the faith 
I hold. It is sufficient to say that I am 
a Protectionist. I believe in the doctrine 
from the Protective standpoint. I only 
desire on this occasion to discuss this 
Tariff bill now before the Senate from 
the standpoint of its effect on the South 
in general and West Virginia in particu- 
lar. In so doing, I desire to state that 
the Protection I would extend to West 
Virginia and her products I stand ready 
to extend, so far as my vote is concerned, 
to any other State and its products. I 
know that Protection works alike every- 
where. 

For a Tariff That Will Protect Coal. 

Removing the duty on coal would ren- 
der a half dozen of our Western States 
dependent on a foreign country for a 
necessity of life; would close down coal 
mines in many States; would depopulate 
many towns dependent upon this indus- 
try; would ruin numbers of American 
coal operators; would cut wages, and 
would be no benefit to the American con- 
sumer. I believe in charity which be- 
gins at home. So I stand for a Tariff 
that will Protect the coal industry of 
West Virginia and of the entire United 
States. We will aid the manufacturer, 
because he gets a better quality of coal; 
we will give to thousands of workingmen 
better wages; we will offer to thousands 
of children better opportunities for edu- 
cation and advancement; we will give to 
the merchant more customers, to the 
farmer more consumers, and to the rail- 
roads more tonnage. 

Vitally Interested in a Tariff on Lumber. 

The South is rich in timber, and West 
Virginia is not behind any of her sister 
States of this section in the production 
of this product. In the year 1905. 900,- 
000 feet of timber were cut and sawed 
at. a .value of nearly $14,000,000. From 
15,000 to 20,000 wage-earners were em- 
ployed and wages paid to the amount of 
over $5,000,000. With such forests and 
products, with so many wage-earners, it 



can readily be seen that West Virginia 
is vitally interested in the Tariff on lum- 
ber. 

Yet the Tariff on lumber is cut from 
what it was in the Dingley bill. Why? 
Will it mean cheaper lumber and cheaper 
building? Will the Western States, which 
are crying for cheaper lumber, get it? 
These are questions which Senators may 
well ponder and may well study carefully 
before answering. I can tell them now 
that it will not. 

Business Interests Identical. 

The business interests of West Virginia 
are identical with the business interests 
of other States. These are anxious to go 
ahead. Factories must be in operation, 
the mills must be running full, the 
farmer planting or reaping his crops, in 
one State as in all. All these benefits 
would be ours now had it not been for 
the uncertainty regarding this Tariff bill. 
This is why I object to any revision. It 
is anticipation of cuts in duties that has 
upset our business conditions. The ques- 
tion of revision came up in 1905 and the 
demoralization of trade soon followed. It 
always does follow Tariff tinkering. Af- 
ter this measure becomes a law I fear 
trade conditions will be unsettled for 
many months. Everyone will be waiting 
to see the effect it will have on different 
commodities; how the reduction will af- 
ect steel, iron, and all the great industries 
I have mentioned, and until this is known 
we can not look for the prosperity that 
we otherwise would have had. 



The Apprehension of Free-Trade 
Caused the Panic of 1893. 

From the Congressional Record of April 27, 
1909. 
STEPHEN B. ELKINS. of West Vir- 
ginia. I wish to correct the Senator from 
Oklahoma as to a matter of fact. In the 
first Cleveland administration it is true 
that there was substantial prosperity; 
we had a Republican Congress, and no 
hostile legislation could be enacted. In 
fact, in the way of passing any new legis- 
lation he was entirely powerless. In the 
second administration of Mr. Cleveland, 
when bonds were sold, there was a Demo- 
cratic President and a Democratic Con- 
gress. The Democratic party was in full 
control of the Government and both 
Houses of Congress, with all sorts of 



150 



ELKINS. McCUMBER. 



threats and rumors about Free-Trade and 
changes of policies. It was then the Wil- 
son Free-Trade bill was passed. 

Harrison Administration Was Not Bank- 
rupt. 

The charge that the Harrison adminis- 
tration at its close was bankrupt is not 
sustained by the facts. At the close of 
the Harrison administration business be- 
gan to suffer and languish because of the 
fact that this country had elected a 
Democratic President upon a Free-Trade 
platform or with Free-Trade tendencies, 
and the Congress chosen was Democratic, 
on the same platform. This filled the 
business world with alarm, and general 
stagnation set in before Harrison went 
out of ofilce. This alarm began to empty 
the Treasury even before Cleveland got 
In. It continued at such a pace that 
bonds had to be sold by Mr. Cleveland In 
the beginning of his administration, and 
I am sorry to say that United States 
bonds which sold in the market for 113 
and 114 were sold at 104 by Mr. Cleveland 
under a private contract with bankers to 
provide funds to pay the ordinary ex- 
penses of the Government and replenish 
the Treasury. In the Senate, because of 
a resolution introduced by myself, and 
passed. President Cleveland was pre- 
vented from selling another issue of $200,- 
000,000 of bonds at private sale, but sold 
them, after due advertisement, at public 
sale, and 113 was realized for those bonds, 
which a short time before sold under a 
private contract made by Mr. Cleveland 
for 104, a difference of nine points, or $9, 
on every hundred dollars of bonds sold, 
the bankers making on the transaction 
about $6,000,000 commission. This was a 
great loss to the Government, and one of 
the great mistakes of the Cleveland ad- 
ministration. 

When the Trouble in the Business World 
Began. 

I make this statement in order that the 
matter may be placed in history and be- 
fore the country in a way that is right 
and absolutely true. The Harrison ad- 
ministration was prosperous and success- 
ful up to and until the time when it was 
known that Cleveland and a Democratic 
Congress were elected; then the trouble 
in the business world began and con- 
tinued. Harrison never sold a bond, and 
no Republican President had ever sold a 
bond, to meet the ordinary expenses of 



the Government. Mr. Buchanan was the 
only Democratic President before Mr. 
Cleveland, a lapse of forty years. I have 
not language at my command to describe 
as strongly as he did the disasters, the 
misfortune, and the ruin that came upon 
the country under his administration. The 
great panic of 1857 occurred in the be- 
ginning of his administration and lasted 
until our great war. 



Alarm Began When the Polls Closed 
in November, 1893. 

From the Congressional Record of April zi, 
1909. 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North Da- 
kota. The crisis of 1907 came upon us 
when every mill was working at its full 
capacity. The crisis of 1893 and up until 
1897, because it was a continuous crisis, 
was when one-third of our mills were 
closed and the other two-thirds were pro- 
ducing only about one-half of their an- 
nual output. 

The Senator says that this condition 
was a world-wide condition, and he says 
that it did not happen until 1894. after 
the Wilson-Gorman Tariff law. Mr. 
President, when the polls were closed In 
November, 1892, the American people 
knew what they were coming to, and we 
immediately began to feel the results of 
that condition. We never got out of that 
condition until we elected a Republican 
Congress and the policy of the Nation 
was outlined in the period wliich preceded 
tliat election; and the moment that we 
adopted the new Tariff bill we saw a 
prosperity, as I have said, that the whole 
world had never seen before. 

Now. was the condition from 1893 to 
1897 world-wide? Mr. President, Great 
Britain was more prosperous during those 
four years than she had been for the 
four years preceding that time. Why? 
Simply because in 1892, the last year of 
Harrison's administration, the balance of 
trade between Great Britain and the 
United States was $343,000,000 in our 
favor. The very next year after the Wil- 
son-Gorman bill that was reversed and 
the balance in her favor was $126,000,000 
in her dealings with the United States, 
or a difference of about $500,000,000. Tliat 
$500,000,000 in the trade of Great Britain 
with this country in her favor made her 
piospi'ious. That $500,000,000, a half a 
billion dollar.^, against us, made our la- 



i 



McCUMBER. GALLINGER. 



151 



borers paupers. That was not a world- 
wide condition by any means. 

Superior Skill and Intelligence Will Not 
Suffice. 

Now, Mr. President, I think the Sena- 
tor must In all candor yield his proposi- 
tion that the superior earning capacity of 
the American laborer depends entirely 
upon his superior skill and intelligence, 
and, I may add, to be perfectly candid 
with the Senator, as he expressed it, the 
superior opportunities in this country. 
There were the same mills, there were 
the same undeveloped resources in this 
country from 1892 to 1896 that there have 
been since that time, and yet, notwith- 
standing his superior intellect, if I may 
agree with the Senator, and his superior 
workmanship, the American laborer was 
a vagabond on the face of the earth. 

Mr. President, I hope the Senator will 
not insist that we can make the American 
laborer well to do unless we give him the 
opportunity to develop those resources of 
the country, which opportunity we have 
given him in the last few years. 

How the Farmers Fared in Democratic 
Tariff Times. 

I can call the Senator's attention to 
another fact in my own part of the coun- 
try. I can remember when upon our 
farms in 1893 oats were sold for 10 cents 
a bushel, delivered in the elevators or on 
the cars. The average price of our wheat 
was from 35 cents to 60 cents a bushel 
out on the farms. Our corn was worth 
from 25 cents to 30 cents a bushel. We 
did not raise, on the average, any more 
during those four years than we have 
raised upon the average during the last 
eleven years, and yet we have almost 
doubled the value of every one of those 
products. It is not due entirely to the 
question of foreign demand, because when 
I look over the statistics I find that from 
1893 to 1896 the average consumption per 
capita of the American people of wheat 
was less than 4 bushels, and I find that 
In the last ten years the average has 
been about 6 bushels, or almost twice as 
much. That has had very much to do 
with the price of our products since that 
time. So I can take up every other farm 
article that has been produced in the 
United States. 

The whole question is a question be- 
tween prosperity and stagnation. A low 
Tariff, a Tariff that Is not a sufficient 



Protection, gives us stagnation. The 
other gives us a reasonable degree of 
prosperity. That is the only distinction 
there is between Democratic and Repub- 
lican policies. 



Opposed to Duties and Protection in 
Spots. 

From the Congressional Record of April 2g, 
1909. 

JACOB H. GALLINGER, of New 
Hampshire. I want to say, in response to 
a suggestion of the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. McCumber], that when he 
says that a duty on lumber is going to 
destroy our forests and that free lum- 
ber is going to preserve them, he puts 
himself in direct antagonism to the views 
of Mr. Pinchot, of the forester of my own 
State, and of the forestry experts 
throughout the United States. 

Mr. McCUMBER. And in direct har- 
mony with many other experts. 

Mr. GALLINGER. And then, again, I 
want to suggest that I think the fact that 
they can raise a crop of wheat or a crop 
of barley every year in North Dakota 
is no reason why it should be Protected 
as against lumber, which can not be pro- 
duced every year. I think we ought to 
Protect the industry that has got to 
struggle through a hundred years to pro- 
duce a tree. 

Mr. ELKINS. The Senator from New 
Hampshire has answered the Senator 
from North Dakota very well and prop- 
erlj^ The contention of the Senator from 
North Dakota is that because the lumber 
industry, although valuable, one of the 
leading industries of the United States, 
and especially of the South must disap- 
pear, in the nature of things, probably in 
one hundred years or two hundred years 
and that is dependent on whether we 
plant or replant and restore our forests 
— that because of its temporary charac- 
ter and because of its infirmity in this 
regard it must not be taxed, but must 
be free. The money which is invested 
in timber lands and the lumber industry 
is just as sacred as the money which is 
invested in your farm and Is entitled to 
as much consideration. Because you 
probably exhaust one before the other Is 
no reason why it should be treated dif- 
ferently, unjustly, and unfairly. Because 
the forests maj' be exhausted is no argu- 
ment why the great lumber industry of 
the country should not be treated as 



158 



GALLINGER. McCUMBER. ELKINS. 



fairly as the products of other States. 
Let me say to the Senator, following the 
experience of other States— New York, 
Ohio, and others I might name— some day 
the soil of his State will be exhausted 
and not produce wheat and barley. Is 
this a good reason why wheat and barley 
should not be treated as liberally as other 
products? In time everything will fail, 
and therefore we should not take care of 
the present and provide for the future? 

Tariff or No Tariff. 

Mr. McCUMBER. Does the Senator be- 
lieve that with the rate of consumption, 
say, 5 per cent yearly of our lumber, 
the price is going down? If we are ex- 
hausting it at that rate, will not the price 
be bound to go up, Tariff or no Tariff? 
Mr. ELKINS. Mr. President, suppose 
the price does go up. Does not the price 
of the land in his State go up every year, 
and will not these same lands be ex- 
hausted and fail to produce? 

Mr. GALLINGER. And of wheat. 
Mr. ELKINS. And wheat is going up, 
and going up because we are going to 
produce less wheat and not enough soon 
for our own supply. So, there is no argu- 
ment in that. The argument is absurd, 
if the Senator will allow me to say it, 
that just because here is an industry 
which has $600,000,000 invested in it and 
employs 600,000 people in the United 
States, which may pass away soon, or 
within fifty years or a hundred years, or 
is passing away, it must not have the 
benefit of Protection the same as other 
industries and products. And yet the 
Senator claims to be a Protectionist. 
Tried by his own rule, is he a sound Pro- 
tectionist? 

Mr. GALLINGER. It employs 800,000 
people. 

Protection in Spots. 
Mr. ELKINS. Yes. That argument will 
not do. I am willing to extend to the 
Senator's State reasonable Protection 
upon every product which they produce; 
hut why can not the Senator be as lib- 
eral toward industries of other sections 
and other States as he is to his own? 
The Senator wants this duty of 30 cents 
per bushel on wheat; he wants a duty of 
30 cents on barley. They are the high- 
est kind of Protected industries in his 
State; yet he is unwilling to grant the 
same Protection to other States. I sub- 
mit to him whether that is fair and just, 
and whether this \^ c(|ualizin^ duties and 



a fair revision of the Tariff. I am op- 
posed to duties and Protection in spots. 
All American industries should be treated 
fairly. This can not be done by pro- 
tecting some and putting others on the 
free list. There is enough money to be 
raised for the needs of the Government 
if the duties are laid and distributed justly 
to Protect every American industry need- 
ing Protection. We can never make a 
Tariff if we Protect the industries and 
products of some States and put the 
products of others on the free list. 

New England Flooded With Canadian La- 
borers. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, If 
the Senator from West Virginia will per- 
mit me, I have some knowledge on this 
subject. Americans are going to British 
Columbia to take up farms. They have 
gotten rich in Iowa, Minnesota, and Ne- 
braska because they took up land at $1.25 
an acre which is now worth from $75 to 
$100. But now they are selling it and go- 
ing over to Canada, where they can buy 
virgin land for from $8 to $10 an acre. 
It is a good business proposition. Now, 
the Senator suggests that if labor is 
cheaper in Canada than in this country it 
is rather remarkable that Canadians do 
not come to this country to find work. 
New England is flooded with Canadian 
laborers in our forests, in our mills, in 
our brickyards, in all our industries, and 
they come there because they get better 
wages than they get in Canada. Immedi- 
ately after they come across the line 
they demand American wages. 

Mr. McCUMBER. For whom do they 
work when they come over from Can- 
ada? 

Mr. GALLINGER. In our mills, in our 
forests, in our brickyards, and they have 
the benefit of our Tariff laws. 

Wilson Bill and Free Lumber. 

Mr. ELKINS. I want to cite the ex- 
perience of West Virginia and sections 
of the country with which I am familiar 
when we had the Wilson bill and free 
lumber. I state it as a fact that free 
lumber under the Wilson bill closed 90 
per cent of our mills and the grass grew 
in the roads leading up to them; and in 
the New York markets they took Can- 
adian lumber to build grain elevators and 
supply the general market there that 
West Virginia before an(l under the Mc- 



C}ALLTNGI5R. SCOTT. SIMMONS. HALE. 



159 



Kiniey bill was furnishing. That is an 
actual fact. 

There is another feature about this 
free-lumber proposition. Already alert 
American capitalists are buying timber 
lands in Mexico and getting ready to 
build railroads to bring lumber into the 
United States. They have bought lands 
for $2 an acre, some for a dollar and less, 
and are waiting for lumber to be put 
on the free list. They have got their 
friends here now working for free lum- 
ber, and there are some timber owners 
from Canada, too, wanting and working 
for free lumber. Why? Because then 
they can carry on the lumber business 
profitably in Mexico and Canada, having 
cheap lands and low wages. These are 
the dangers that surround us, the break- 
ing down of a great and leading industry 
of this country by the reduction of the 
duty on lumber or putting it on the free 
list. 

The Best Place to Have a Boil. 

Mr. SCOTT. I wanted to ask my col- 
league if the duty were taken off of lum- 
ber whether or not it would result in one 
farthing of reduction to the consumer? 
For my part, I do not believe it would 
ever reach the consumer at all. We had 
a great man once in this country'-, who 
said the Tariff question was a local ques- 
tion, and from the discussion here to-day 
and that which we shall undoubtedly 
have, it strikes me it is very local. It 
is a little like Artemus Ward, who, when 
asked where was the best place to have 
a boil, replied on one of his wife's rela- 
tions. That is the way with Senators in 
this Chamber. They are willing to reduce 
the Tariff on everything that somebody 
else has, but they are not willing to re- 
duce the Tariff on their own manufac- 
tures or on articles produced in their own 
States. 



Southern Democratic Senators Favor 
Protection for Lumber. 

From the Congressional Record of April 30, 
1909. 

F. M. SIMMONS, of North Carolina. 
The bill under consideration reduces the 
duty upon rough lumber — that is, sawed 
board — from $2 to $1 per thousand feet. 
The equivalent ad valorem rates are, re- 
spectively, about 1 per cent and 5i/^ per 
cent. 

I am opposed to this reduction and In 



favor of retaining the present duty upon 
lumber, because the present rate is upon 
a revenue basis, and because the proposed 
reduction will probably not reduce the 
price of lumber to the farmer and the 
home builder, or, if at all, only slightly 
and in a comparatively limited area, 
while it would work great hardship to 
the lumVjer industry and the sections of 
the country in which this industry Is 
conducted, by enlarging the market zone 
of Canada for this product. 

Country Was Flooded With Lumber from 
Canada. 

Mr. HALE. Right in line with what 
the Senator is so well saying, does he 
not remember, as an actual fact, result- 
ing from the provisions for free lumber 
in the Gorman-Wilson bill, that lumber 
from the Canadian eastern Provinces — 
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia — 
flooded not only the ports and market 
places in New England, but, extending 
farther south, into the ports of the Chesa- 
peake and maybe lower than that, came 
in and took the place of the American 
product during the operation of that act? 

I remember specifically the statement of 
the master of a coaster, a lumber 
schooner from Maine, that in the wharves 
of Boston, Chelsea, and the other ports 
where lumber was imported, he waited 
until twenty-odd Nova Scotia and New 
Brunswick schooners dumped their cargo. 
And the result — I do not know so well 
what it was in the South, but the Senator 
will remember that; he has been inter- 
ested in this matter for years — with us 
was the complete prostration of the lum- 
ber industry for the benefit of the Cana- 
dian producer of that article. 

Wants the South to Have Its Share of 
Protection. 

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland. I want to 
say to the Senator from Indiana that, so 
far as I am concerned, I am in favor of 
a proper adjustment of the Tariff. I rec- 
ognize the fact that we must have rev- 
enue; I recognize the fact that that 
revenue is to be obtained by a Tariff; I 
recognize the fact that on account of the 
Tariff there is incidental Protection; and, 
so far as I am concerned, I want the peo- 
ple that I represent and the people of 
the South generally to have their share 
of that incidental Protection. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I said a large majority 
of the Senators upon this side of the aisle 



160 



SIMMONS. HALE. JOHNSON. 



are in favor of a duty vipon lumber as a 
Protective duty. A considerable portion, 
I think a majority, on that side of the 
aisle are in favor of a duty on lumber as 
a revenue duty. Now let vis agree that 
so far as this bill is concerned we shall 
waive the question of names. We are 
both for the same thing under different 
names. 

For Prefect ion All Along the Line. 

And I have the courage to say I am 
a Protectionist. I am a Protectionist as 
much in Georgia as in New England; I 
am for Protection all along the line; and 
I am willing to call it Protection. I am 
not dodging behind a proposition of a 
revenue Tariff or anything else. I am 
for Protection, and whether it is 10 per 
cent or 20 per cent or 30 per cent or 40 
per cent or 50 per cent, whatever it may 
be, I am for it. 

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, is it not a 
fact, precisely in the line of reasoning 
the Senator is pursuing, that with our 
industries in lumber manufacturing in the 
East, in the South, and in the West, we 
have all that we can do to maintain our- 
selves against the present inroad of Cana- 
dian lumber? The importations into this 
country to-day under the present duties 
on lumber from Canada amount to nearly 
$21,000,000, affording a revenue to the 
Government of nearly $4,000,000 in duties. 
Here is an attempt to take away, as the 
Senator has so well said, the only pro- 
tection that his industries and ours in the 
East and those on the Pacific coast have 
of the $2 duty, leaving us entirely at the 
mercy of the Canadian lumbermen. 



Tribute to the Memory of Nelson 
Dingley. 

From the Congressional Record of April so, 
1909. 
MARTIN N. JOHNSON, of North Da- 
kota. But there is another test, much 
more important, much more severe; and 
right there is where public men fall, if 
they fall at all. Take, for instance, the 
pilot of a ship. He will pass the exami- 
nation on the first two points easily. 
Here we are in a storm, in a gloom of 
midnight such as bewildered the Senator 
from Maryland [Mr. Rayner] at the open- 
ing of his speech yesterday. The pilot 
stands there at the wheel. His life as 
well as mine, if I am a passenger, Is at 
stake. The lives of the passengers, the 



safety of the crew are at stake. I have 
no fear of his honesty. There never was 
a pilot, I think, but what if steering a 
ship in case of danger would be honest. 

Another thing is the question whether 
he is brave. Most of those men are 
brave. I do not thank the pilot for being 
honest and for being brave. I expect 
that as a matter of course. 

But the pilot may fail in the third and 
the supreme test. Is he right? That Is 
the supreme test. If the pilot Is wrong 
and steers that vessel upon the rocks or 
into the surf and loses the cargo and 
ship, and I am hurt as a passenger, it is 
nothing to me that he was honest, it is 
nothing to me that he was brave; the 
fact that he was wrong is the one su- 
preme test. 

Now, it is just the same w'ay in states- 
manship. Few men like Dingley pass this 
last test of which I speak. There was 
a Christian statesman, if we ever had 
one in the history of our country. Let 
us revere his memory. It grated upon my 
ears to hear some Senator here say that 
in the legislation of the country he fooled 
the American people. I know he did not. 
I know he was honest and brave, and I 
believe that he was right. 

How to Carry Out the Pledge of Revision. 

This country Is watching and waiting 
Impatiently. Their business, their oppor- 
tunity for making a living, largely de- 
pends upon our work. Do not let us send 
out statements from here unless we know 
that they are true. Let us not send out 
speeches to undermine the confidence the 
people ought to have, and that they do 
have, lest they be deprived of that great- 
est of all boons, confidence in their Gov- 
ernment, love of their country, confidence 
In the men tliey have trusted again and 
again to come here and make our laws. 

I heard Mr. Taft, the candidate of the 
Republican party, make a speech at 
Fargo during the same campaign, and he 
explained that, and he told us there, and 
he told us on the rostrum here, when he 
was inaugurated, that he thought this 
would mean in most Instances a revision 
downward, but in some cases it might be 
upward, and either in a speech made In 
that same week, I either heard it or read 
it in a newspaper, he said we might have 
to revise upward in some instances, and 
that glassware and crockery might come 
under that head. 

We adopted a platform that laid down 



JOHNSON. SMITH. McCUMBER. 



161 



our rule, and it is our duty as brave men 
to carry out that rule on the floor of thl3 
House, if it requires us to slightly raise 
the Tariff in some few instances where 
the foreigner has taken away our market. 
That is the rule under which we are 
worliing, and we acquit ourselves entirely 
of the trust that is laid in our hands if 
we go back to our people and say that 
we have faithfully and conscientiously 
enacted into law the platform on which 
we were elected; and according to our 
convictions we did our duty. 



customed to our mode of living, going to 
those countries to live. 



What the American Wage-=Earner 
Gets Out of Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of May 3, 
1909. 

WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Michi- 
gan. Does the Senator from Texas ad- 
mit that the American wage-earner is 
better paid and will continue to be better 
paid, and can live better and happier and 
more comfortably under the principle 
of Protection than under the principle he 
advocates? 

Mr. BAILEY. I do not admit any such 
absurdity as that. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. The Senator 
has already admitted part of the absur- 
dity, namely 

Mr. BAILEY. It is the part I did not 
admit whicli makes the absurdity. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. That wages 
are higher here. He has already ad- 
mitted, I think, that the American wage- 
earner lives better than the foreign la- 
borer. That is the second part of the ab- 
surdity. Now, if he does live better and 
does get a better wage, is it the height 
of absurdity to say that he is happier 
and more contented here? In fact, Mr. 
President, if the Senator from Texas will 
but linger around the ports of this coun- 
try he will find millions of foreigners 
seeking this ideal wage and these ideal 
comforts, and he may linger long 

Mr. BAILEY. I can not yield for an 
oration. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I thank the 
Senator from Texas. I did not know 
that my remarks had attained any such 
height in his judgment. But, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I will not Interrupt the Senator 
further than to say that he may linger 
long around the ports of every other 
country in the world and he will not have 
rhe satisfaction of seeing Americans, ac- 



Many Ardent, Strong Protectionists 
Throughout the Southern States. 

From the Congressional Record of May 3, 
1909. 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North Da- 
kota. Mr. President, I have been much 
impressed in many respects in the mat- 
ter of the revision of these Tariffs. I 
have never had any experience hereto- 
fore in working along that line, but what 
has impressed me most and has been 
brought home to me most vividly is the 
fact that there are so many ardent, 
strong, forceful Protectionists throughout 
the entire Southern States, when I had 
always believed that they were either 
Free-Traders or advocates of a Tariff 
for revenue. I find in fact a stronger 
spirit for Protection pervading the South- 
ern States than I find in my own strong 
Republican State of North Dakota. 

When I apply the policy of Protection 
I try to apply it to all the American 
people, because we are all producers and 
we are all consumers, and a policy of 
Protection whicli is properly levied would 
help the producer on the one side who 
becomes the consumer upon the other 
side. I know that the doctrine of Democ- 
racy has been opposed to that. I know 
that your people have declared again and 
again that the Protective policy always 
made some men rich, who are always the 
other people, and always made your own 
people poor. I have not found that to be 
the case. I have never found a policy 
which helped one class of the American 
people tliat did not help the other classes 
of the American people. 

We may divide this country practically 
into two great classes — those whom we 
will call the agricultural class, who pro- 
duce things to eat, and the manufactur- 
ing class, who produce things to wear and 
to shelter us. The $40,000,000,000, or 
thereabouts, of American internal com- 
merce is the trade of one thing for an- 
other, the trading of things to eat for 
things to wear and shelter. 

A Policy That Will Help Both Sides. 

The value of any product, as every 
thinking man must know, is fixed by the 
demand in the field of consumption and 
not the value in the field of production. 



162 



McCUMBER. ELKINS. 



If you have nothing but destitution and 
poverty at the place of consumption, you 
will not secure verj^ high prices for your 
goods at the place of production. If the 
farmers of this country raise 600,000,000 
bushels of wheat for a home consumption 
that will take up every bushel of it they 
are far better off than they would be 
if they had to force their product into 
foreign countries against the production 
of the entire world, and I hope the time 
Is not far distant, Mr. President, when 
we will not export one bushel of grain 
or flour. I believe that time is very near 
at hand. If the farmer's crop fails or If 
he gets poor prices for his crop, he is just 
that much crippled in buying the manu- 
facturer's products and the manufacturer 
suffers accordingly. If, on the other 
hand, by the adoption of a policy which 
takes away Protection to our manufac- 
turing industries, we close our mill^ and 
factories and pauperize half of our popu- 
lation, the natural consumers of the farm- 
er's products, the farmer will suffer just 
to the extent of the injury that is inflicted 
upon the manufacturing class. 

I want a policy that will help both 
sides. I deny that any political pHDlicy can 
make one-half of the American people 
rich and the other half poor at the same 
time. Why, my friend, returning to your 
hog proposition, that Democratic fallacy 
is no more of a fallacy than the declara- 
tion that the farmer can feed his grown 
pig in such a manner that he will grow 
fat on one side and lean on the other side 
at the same time. [Laughter.] The one 
is a physical, the other an industrial im- 
possibilit5^ Any just policy that will hold 
for higher prices to the American people 
throughout is a policy that we are bound 
to follow. 

Consumers Exeeed in Number the Pro- 
ducers. 

What are the principles that constitute 
the foundation of our Republican doctrine 
of Protection? We seem to have forgot- 
ten them on both sides of this Chamber. 
Those principles have been reiterated 
again and again in almost every political 
campaign wherein that question has been 
raised. WTiat are they? They are, first, 
the development of an industry that Is 
capable of development. There is the 
first proposition. If an industry is incap- 
able of development, if It is incapable of 
expansion, then there is no reason in the 
world for having a Protective duty ap- 



plied to that particular industry. I may 
go further and agree with my friend from 
SovUh Carolina that if an industry, hav- 
ing been Protected during a number of 
years, has reached the limit of expansioH 
and, by reason of the exhaustion of the 
raw material, is bound to reach a state 
of extinction in a very short time, then 
the principle of Protection has no further 
application whatever to that particular 
industry. 

The second principle is that by expan- 
sion and development there will ulti- 
mately follow decreased cost to the con- 
sumer. We can not allow ourselves to 
forget that the consumers of any one ar- 
ticle must necessarily vastly exceed in 
number the producers of such article, and 
the system which will continually compel 
the greater number to pay a tribute to 
the few without a corresponding benefit 
must be inequitable and unjust. In other 
words, the compensation to the consumer 
for the payment of an extra price to the 
producer to-day is that he s^iall be called 
upon to pay a less price than he other- 
wise would to-morrow. 

How Long Musi a Product Last to Be 
Entitled to Protection? 

Mr. ELKINS. I want to submit to the 
Senator this proposition: Just because 
the timber industry is an expiring one, 
a disappearing one, and can not last for- 
ever — although I do not know what is in 
his mind as to the length of time, 
whether a hundred or two hundred years 
— the investor in timber lands and the 
lumber industry is not to enjoy any Pro- 
tection. I think the case is parallel with 
the soil giving out, and that barley and 
wheat will not last, and therefore every 
product in his State, if you please, will 
pass away, and therefore should not be 
Protected. In the wreck of matter and 
the crash of worlds this earth and even 
the stars will give way and become dust, 
and tlierefore we must not impose a duty 
upon anything not permanent. Nothing 
is permanent; nothing will endure forever. 
So your rule would apply to any article 
produced, because all articles or products 
must pass away. How long must a 
product last to be entitled to Protection? 
What number of years — fifty years, a hun- 
dred years, or two hundred years? If 
It is going out in five j^ears, then it must 
not be Protected and be open, free to the 
world and foreign labor, and there must 
be no duty on it— no Protection. What 



J 



McCUMBER. GALLINGER. BRADLEY. 



1G3 



is to become o-f the capit-alists who have 
invested in timber lands and sawmills and 
the people who depend on the lumber in- 
dustry? Are they not to be considered 
in taking account of American indus- 
tries? Take the capitalist who invests 
his money and is ready to carry on the 
business. Must he be stricken down be- 
cause timber will some day give out and 
is a disappearing industry? 

Mr. McCUMBER. I can see a little bit 
of difference; possibly it is very slight to 
the Senator from West Virginia, but I 
can see a considerable difference between 
thirty years from to-day and that future 
time when the sun shall burn itself to 
ashes. I can see a reason for applying a 
principle to conditions as they exist to- 
day and to conditions as they are bound 
to exist within a very few years, and ap- 
plying it to some far-off period beyond 
our imagination. 

Does Not See Where the Gain Is to Be. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, if the 
Senator will permit me, he has said that 
we will import 20 per cent from Canada. 
If that be so, it must put out of commis- 
sion 20 per cent of the 800,000 men who 
are now working in the lumber industry. 
It seems to me that is a mathematical 
conclusion that the Senator's oratory can 
not get rid of. If that be so, then I do 
not see where the gain is to be. 

Then as to the reduced price of lum- 
ber; If the Senator will take the state- 
ment of Mr. Charlton, a very eminent 
Canadian, he will see that Mr. Charlton 
says that they do not expect that there 
will be any reduction in the price of lum- 
ber. He says that they want Free-Trade 
to get their product into the United 
States and get the American price for it. 
So our people will not get any benefit 
from that, but we will lose labor for one- 
fifth of the men who are now engaged in 
our lumber industry, and Canada, that 
has only 14 or 15 per cent as much tim- 
ber as we have, will not allow us to take 
all her timber before she puts an embargo 
upon it. 

I do not see how the Senator's scheme 
is going to greatly extend the time when 
the timber product of the United States 
is going to be destroyed. 

I do not personally take any stock in 
either the twenty or thirty year period 
that the Senator fixes as a time when we 
are going to see the last tree felled in 



the United States. It is not going to hap- 
pen, whether we have free lumber or not. 
Mr. McCUMBER. I will tell you why 
It will not happen, if it does not happen. 
It will only be checked by such exorbitant 
prices for lumber as will compel the 
American people to have a substitute for 
lumber for building material and for the 
other purposes for which our lumber is 
to be used. That is the only thing in the 
world I can conceive of that will prevent 
the lumber prices from going to the skies, 
and the consequent exhaustion of our 
lumber districts as the prices go up. 
There is a limit beyond which we can not 
go even in the prices that we put upon 
lumber, and that is the limit of the abil- 
ity of the people to purchase lumber. 



All Sectional Lines in Legislation 
Should Be Blotted Out. 

From the Congressional Record of May 4, 
1909. 

WILLIAM O. BRADLEY, of Kentucky. 
As I understand, in order to carry out the 
doctrine of Protection such a duty should 
be levied on foreign products, raw and 
manufactured, which compete with ours 
as will maintain the wages of American 
laborers against the cheap, and in some 
instances degraded, labor of foreign coun- 
tries and afford a reasonable profit to the 
American producer or manufacturer. 
That such a policy in the end cheapens 
the manufactvu-ed article by reason of in- 
creased manufacture, increased consump- 
tion, improved methods and machinery, 
and increased home competition has been 
too often demonstrated to require at this 
late day any argument. 

I am a Protectionist in every :;ense of 
the word, and would give its benefits to 
every interest which demands it in order 
that it may live. 

I plead to-day for the blotting out of 
all lines in legislation, for the harmoniz- 
ing of all sections, for. the cementing to- 
gether by the ties of commercial interest, 
brotherly love, and affection, all the peo- 
ple. 

Our great and good President is patriot- 
ically engaged in an honest effort to rec- 
ognize and do equal justice to every sec- 
tion of the Union. His example should 
be emulated and followed by all. 

The South needs Protection on her lum- 
ber, coal, iron, rosin, turpentine, fluor 
spar, hemp, tobacco, and other interests. 
If we desire to be just, let us Protect all 



164 



BRADLEY. ALDRICH. DOLLIVER. 



these interests. And if we desire to build 
up the Republican party in the South, 
let us show that we are willing to build 
up the interests of that section. 

Let the North, the South, the East, the 
West each and all be Protected as they 
are entitled to be Protected, and the Na- 
tion which is now the grandest on earth 
will move forward with increased energy, 
attaining a degree of prosperity and 
power of which we have not even 
dreamed. 

Mr. President, one more word and I 
am through. Give to Kentucky fair Pro- 
tection of her interests and I guarantee 
you it will be but a short time until Ken- 
tucky is as certainly a Republican State 
as the great State of Massachusetts. 



Vast Importance of the Wool and 
Woolen Schedule. 

From the Congressional Record of May 4 and 5, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. Mr. President, I simply want to 
put into the Record the statement of 
two Senators, made in 1897, as to the 
character of the woolen schedule in the 
act of 1897. I want to do it for the pur- 
pose of showing not anything that is dis- 
agreeable either to the memory of the 
Senator from Arkansas or the memory of 
the Senator from Missouri, or to the Sen- 
ator from Iowa; but I know so well that 
Senators are liable to be misled in mat- 
ters of this kind, to make exaggerated 
statements, and to misrepresent the facts. 
They are liable to be misled by the im- 
porters of these articles into this coun- 
try — the men whose interest it is to break 
down this and every other schedule in the 
bill. 

I expect to show, when I take the floor, 
that there are no increases in the cotton 
schedule of the bill at all. It is merely a 
substitution of rates which are absolutely 
equivalent— the specific rates for the ad 
valorems of the existing law. The ad 
valorems of the existing law are upon the 
average 38 per cent. In the bill they are 
not increased at all. and I will prove that 
to the satisfaction of the Senate. I will 
show that the articles which have been 
produced here are fuinished by importers 
who have destroyed the cotton schedules 
through decisions in the past — decisions 
of the Board of Appraisers and of the 
courts— by which they have reduced the 
duties upon certain articles imposed by 



the Dingley act at 60 per cent until 
they are 4, 5, and 6 per cent. Those are 
the men who have produced these sam- 
ples. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, I do 
not intend to conceal from the Senate 
those who have been kind enough to help 
me in my investigations. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I drd not suppose the 
Senator would. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I have consulted with 
great merchants East and West. I have 
consulted with cotton manufacturers and 
with men engaged both in the foreign and 
in the domestic trade in cotton. The 
sample which I showed a moment ago 
was given to me by as bright a merchant 
as there is in America, who is none the 
less entitled to my respect because he 
marched at the head of a column 19,000 
strong through the streets of New York 
the day before the election in support of 
the candidacy of President Taft in that 
great campaign. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I have no doubt that 
he is most respectable. But the point I 
was making is that these good men, these 
respectable men, have interests in this 
matter which are entirely antagonistic 
to the great interests of the people of this 
countiT- I do not blame them for appear- 
ing here or anywhere else in defense of 
her interests and in securing for them- 
selves any support which they can get. 

Viial and Fundamental Questions. 

The contention of the Senator from 
Iowa in regard to the wool and woolen 
schedule of the bill raises questions that 
are vital and fundamental. If it shall be 
shown that the woolgrowers of the 
United States and the woolen manufac- 
turers of the United States in 1867 entered 
into a conspii'acy to deceive and to de- 
fraud the people of this country by the 
suggestion of a formula to be used for 
Tariff legislation, then the Protective pol- 
icy should be abandoned and the party 
which supports it should be disbanded. 
If the men who have had charge of the 
various Tariff bills and are responsible 
for their preparation from 1867 down to 
the present time were parties to that de- 
ceit and fraud, then they deserve all the 
execration tliat can be heaped upon them 
here or elsewhere. 

Great Men Who Stood for Protection. 

Now, who were those men? In this re- 
spect it was not possible that any of those 
men should have been ignorant of the 



ALDRICII. BAILEY. 



165 



provisions of the woolen schedule of the 
various acts which have been adopted 
from 1867 down to the present time. 
Every one of the difficulties that has 
been alluded to in the course of this de- 
bate was brought before the country and 
before the Senate in every discussion 
which has taken place within forty-two 
years. So I say if those men have been 
guilty of deceit and fraud in this par- 
ticular schedule they should be held up 
to the execration of the American peo- 
ple. Who were they? They were John 
Sherman, Justin S. Morrill, Benjamin 
Harrison, William McKinlej', Nelson 
Dingley, and Mr. Payne. Those men have 
heretofore stood well, I think, before the 
American people. They certainly have 
had the confidence of the people belong- 
ing to the party I represent. 

Now, if it is possible to show that this 
combination of woolen manufacturers and 
of woolgrowers that the Senator from 
Iowa contemptuously alludes to as the 
shepherds and weavers of this country 
have been instrumental in imposing upon 
the people of this country in the wool 
and woolen schedules, it is time that the 
people of this country knew it. 

An Attack upon the Very Citadel of Pro- 
tection. 

There is no Senator sitting upon this 
side of the Chamber, there is no person 
who is acquainted with the Tariffs of 
this or of any other country, who does 
not know that an assault upon the wool 
and woolen schedule of this bill is an at- 
tack upon the very citadel of Protection 
and the lines of defense for American 
Industries and American labor. If the 
Senate destroys the relations in that 
schedule or destroys the schedule itself, 
you demoralize the whole Protective sys- 
tem; and you destroy every line of de- 
fense which the people of this country 
have who believe in the Protective policy. 

I myself make a distinction — perhaps 
the Senator from Texas does not — be- 
tween the men who represent in this 
country American interests and who are 
trying to develop its industries and its 
prosperity and those men whose interest 
it is, whatever else they may be, to 
build up the industries of their own 
countries and give employment to the la- 
bor of their own countries as contradis- 
tinguished from ours. If I am called 
upon to take the word of any man upon 
this subject, I prefer to take the word 



of an American citizen who i.'^ patriotic 
and truthful rather than the word of any 
Importer, however intelligent he may be. 
I desire to make this statement, that 
so far as the majority members of the 
Committee on Finance are concerned they 
have heard everybody, so far as time 
vi-ould permit, who had an interest In 
this question upon one side or the other, 
and therefore I can recognize an Impor- 
ter's brief when I see it. 

The Crucial Schedule of the Bill. 

. . . Again, I say to the Senator, that 
this wool and woolen schedule is the cru- 
cial schedule in this bill. That has been 
known to be a fact by the Senator from 
Texas and by other Democrats, The 
Senator understands very well that, If by 
insidious or any other means, he can In- 
duce the Senate to break down this 
schedule, that is the end of Protection, for 
the present anyway, in this country. I 
will say further to the Senator from 
Texas, that every attempt which is made 
to break down the provisions of this 
schedule and to discredit it is hailed with 
joy by the woolen manufacturers of 
Bradford and their employees and by 
the woolen manufacturers of every coun- 
try in the world who are trying to com- 
pete for this, the greatest market not 
only now existing, but which ever existed. 
There is not a hamlet in the world where 
woolen manufacturing is carried on whose 
inhabitants will not read with joy any 
statement which looks to the abandon- 
ment of the Protection which has been 
accorded to the woolen manufacturers 
and to the woolgrowers of the United 
States. There is not a ranch in Aus- 
tralia or in any other country that is 
growing wool where the shepherds who 
are engaged in that work are not con- 
gratulating themselves that at last the 
day for them has arrived. There is not 
in this country a manufacturing estab- 
lishment employing men, there is not a 
farmer raising sheep who would not hear 
the tidings that this woolen schedule was 
to be destroyed and that their Protection 
was to vanish without feelings of sorrow 
and depression. 

Trying to Destroy the Schedule. 

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, the Sen- 
ator from Rhode Island is entirely ac- 
curate in saying that the woolen sched- 
ule is the keystone of the Protection arch. 
I simply want to add that no schedule tn 



166 



ALDRICH. MONEY. 



the Tariff bill better exemplifies the fraud 
and injvistice of the whole system than 
does this same woolen schedule. I am 
quite willing to judge the cause of Pro- 
tection by the woolen schedule. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I am quite aware of 
the opinion of the Senator from Texas 
upon that subject. I think he has ex- 
pressed it on numerous occasions, and 
with great distinctness and with great 
eloquence. There is no question what- 
ever that there are gentlemen in the 
United States belonging to his political 
party — not all of them, for there are a 
great many men in Texas who do not 
agree with my friend who in part repre- 
sents that State, I think the Senator 
from Texas realizes that, but there are 
men all over the country — who, realizing 
as they do that that schedule is the key 
to the arch, are doing their utmost and 
using every means at their commanc to 
destroy that schedule, and they have the 
sympathy of the men whose interest it is 
to have it destroyed. 

That argument upon this question does 
not appeal to me; the suggestions of the 
Senator from Texas do not appeal to me, 
and I do not think they appeal to many 
other Republicans. 

The End of Protection for tfie Time 
Being^ 

Mr. MONEY. I do not want to inter- 
rupt the Senator's remarks, but I want 
to understand him. Did I understand the 
Senator from Rhode Island to say only a 
few minutes ago that if this woolen 
schedule were destroyed or attacked, it 
would be the overthrow of Protection in 
this country? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I said if it were de- 
stroyed. Of course it has been attacked. 
There is no schedule in this bill which 
has been attacked more vehemently and 
more persistently than that schedule; but 
I do not think the attacks so far have in- 
jured the Protective principle of the 
schedule. 

Mr. MONEY. I want to understand the 
Senator. Does he think, if the sched- 
ule is successfully attacked and de- 
stroyed, that will be the end of Protec- 
tion in this country? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes; for the time be- 
ing. 

Mr.- MONEY. For the time being? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes, sir; until the peo- 
ple of the UnJtecl §tatQ9 Shall do what 



they did in 1896 — come tu their senses 
and put the seal of disapproval upon at- 
tempts of that kind. 

Mr. MONEY. Mr. President, I dis- 
like very much to disagree with the Sen- 
ator on that question. I can not believe 
that the supporters of this Protection 
policy, which is claiming to be the pe- 
culiar patron saint of husbandry, of com- 
merce, of the manufacturing interests, 
and of every other indvistry, would lose 
heart and fall in Protecting all the other 
great interests of the country because the 
woolen schedule should be attacked and 
destroyed. What would become of the 
cotton schedule, the steel schedule, the 
iron schedule, and the other schedules? 

Mr. ALDRICH. What I meant to say 
was that if this schedule should be de- 
stroyed, the same spirit and the same 
men would go through all the Tariff 
schedules and destroy them all seriatim. 
That is what I meant to say. 

Mr. MONEY; I will submit to the 
Senator if he thinks that the same op- 
position will be developed to every part 
of the schedule that there is to the wool- 
en schedule? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I am not talking about 
this particular situation at all. I real- 
ize, as the Senator himself does, the 
truth of the old fable about the nose of 
the camel. I am not talking about the 
present situation at all, I repeat. I am 
only calling to the attention of the peo- 
ple of this country, who elected a Re- 
publican President upon a Protective 
platform, that the destruction of this 
schedule means a violation of their prin- 
ciples and of their promises. That is 
what I am trying to suggest. 

When We Had a "Lucid Interval." 

Mr. MONEY. As I understand the Sen- 
ator from Rhode Island, he said Protec- 
tion would fail for the time being. That 
means now — not in the future, but now. 
The Senator says that the country would 
come to its senses. I do not feel san- 
guine about this country coming to Its 
senses. I have been waiting here for 
thirty years to see one lucid interval, 
and I have not yet found it on this ques- 
tion. 

Mr. ALDRICH. We had a "lucid In- 
terval," in the opinion of the Senator 
from Mississippi, in 3894. We then had 
free wool and we had very low duties on 
almost everything. We had, I suppose, 



A.LDRICH. MONEY. 



167 



the ideas of the Senator to some extent 
carried into that law, and I take it for 
granted that that was the time my 
friend from Mississippi refers to. You 
have never controlled the country since, 
and unless we are recreant to the trust 
which is imposed upon us. you will not 
have the country again. I make this 
prophecy that within twenty years the 
South, through representatives who are 
now here or through representatives who 
will then be here, will join with us in 
guarding and Protecting the interests of 
the United States as against all comers. 
Mr. MONEY. I do not want to disturb 
the Senator, but I think perhaps that 
when he indulges in that prophecy he has 
an idea as to whom he can buy up in 
this little business. 

"Buying Up" People. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not know what 
the Senator means by "buying up." Does 
the Senator mean that there are Sen- 
ators sitting on that side of the Cham- 
ber who at this time and in the future 
will vote for the interests of the people 
they represent, or what they believe to 
be the interests of the people they repre- 
sent here, and does the Senator mean 
that is bribery? 

Mr. MONEY. Oh, no; I do not mean 
anything of that sort; but I do mean that 
some men in this Senate on both sides 
will vote for a bad bill if they have in it 
what they want for their section. Even 
the Senator from Rhode Island will not 
deny that. I do not reflect upon men's 
motives in this Chamber— not at all. 
Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator is talking 

about 

Mr. MONEY. I do not desire to take 
up too much of the Senator's time, but so 
far as holding the country under Pro- 
tection is concerned, it does not mean 
anything particularly. Nothing is so un- 
expected as that which happens in poli- 
tics. England was very much more Pro- 
tective than we are to-day, and it took 
twenty years from the time John Er- 
skine began the fight on the hustings 
until Robert Peel put a quietus on Pro- 
tection. It was the hardest economic 
fight ever waged in any country in the 
world. Protection was better intrenched 
and better fortified there than is the Pro- 
tective system in America, and it crum- 
bled to pieces at last because the people 
became instructed. 



An Overwhelming Majority in Favor of 
Protection. 
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, it is my 
confident belief that a very large ma- 
jority of the people of this country, I 
may say an overwhelming majority of the 
people of this country, are in favor of the 
Protective principle. I do not care by 
what name you call it. I mean the prin- 
ciple of taking care of your own in- 
dustries and of your own interests as 
against those of other countries. I think 
a great majority of the people of this 
country are in favor of that. You may 
call it one thing in one section and an- 
other tiling in another section; but we are 
all together upon that question. That is 
the fundamental theory of Protection. 

What I understand to be Protection is 
the framing of legislation in this coun- 
try so that it will aid and support Amer- 
ican interests and American labor and 
American industries as against those of 
every other country. Tliat is all there is 
of it. I do not care for names at all; I 
do not care what you call it. The Sen- 
ator from Texas, I know, has old-fash- 
ioned notions as to what the Democratic 
partj'' desires and proposes, but he must 
realize the fact as well as I, that in this 
twentieth century the world is not gov- 
erned in that way. Take Great Britain. 
Does any Senator on this floor believe 
that if they have a change in the govern- 
ment of Great Britain and the Conserva- 
tive party comes into power, they will not 
adopt some kind of a Protective policy? 
Undoubtedly they will. Take the legis- 
lation of continental countries. Every 
day there are more and more looking out 
for their own interests by every possible 
process; they are trying by every scheme 
that ingenuity can devise to keep Ameri- 
can goods out of their borders and to take 
care of their own people. Self-interest 
requires that we should do the same 
thing in this country, and I expect be- 
fore many years that there will be a party 
that will be so comprehensive and so all- 
embracing that there will be no chance 
for anybody else who has different views; 
who will consider, if you please, what 
effect it would have on Great Britain if 
this rate were raised or that rate were 
raised, or what effect it would have on 
Germany if this thing were done or that 
thing were done. We are here to legis- 
late for the American people and for 
their interests, and, so far as I am con- 
cerned, I shall try to legislate in every 



168 



ALDRTCH. CARTER. 



paragraph of this bill for the benefit of 
the people of every section of our coun- 
try, and I Intend to maintain that policy. 



The Wool Schedule the Keystone of 
the Protective=Tariff System. 

From the Congressional Record of May 5, 
1909. 

THOMAS H. CARTER, of Montana. 
Mr. President, I fully agree with the Sen- 
ator from Texas [Mr. Bailey] and the 
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr, Aldrich] 
in their joint and harmonious conclusion 
that the wool schedule is the keystone 
of the Protective-Tariff system. No one 
expected in the beginning that this ses- 
sion of Congress, or any considerable 
portion of it, would be consumed in de- 
bating the fundamental principles under- 
lying Free-Trade and the Protective- 
Tariff policj'. In considering the ques- 
tion suggested, the relation of the coun- 
try to its neighbors, its geographical 
area, and its natural resources must all 
be taken into account in determining the 
wisdom or unwisdom of a given national 
policy. As applied to the United States, 
I have heretofore assumed that it had 
been for the time being conceded that the 
Protective policy was, in the judgment 
of an overwhelming majority, accepted as 
a wise policy for thite country to continue. 
I concede at once that a country differ- 
ently situated from this, densely popu- 
lated, of small geographical area, and 
limited natural resources might well stand 
for the freest kind of Free-Trade. 

A country which is chiefly devoted to 
improving the commercial value of ar- 
ticles received from one market, which 
it passes on in an improved condition to 
another market is, of course, interested 
in the admission of the raw materials, 
so called, without any considerable re- 
straint; but in a country such as ours, of 
3.000,000 square miles of territory, with 
States many of which are possessed of 
greater natural resources than the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland — 
which, after all, is but a workshop and a 
clearing house — may have a policy tend- 
ing to develop the natural resources and 
to promote its commercial as well as its 
political independence, for it is true that 
no country can be in the truest sense 
politically Independent which is indus- 
trially and commercially dependent. 



Actual Demonstration of the Wisdom of 
Protection. 

This country of ours has pursued the 
Protective-Tariff policy until we are pre- 
pared to furnish actual demonstration of 
its wisdom; and in no case is the wisdom 
of the policy more clearly exemplified or 
better sustained than in connection with 
the Protective-Tariff policy as applied to 
wool and woolens. 

Mr. President, there are two pui^poses 
underlying the encouragement of any in- 
dustry. First, and of primary importance, 
is the need for the production of the nec- 
essities of life within the limits of the 
realm; second, and of less relative im- 
portance, the production of the comforts 
and the luxuries of life. 

I assert as a fact which no man will 
contradict that the country which can not 
raise within its own borders an adequate 
supply of bread and meat and cotton and 
wool to feed and to clothe the people is a 
dependent country, whereas that country 
which can produce its own bread and 
meat and clothing in ample abundance is 
capable of resisting any measure of out- 
side pressure for an indefinite period of 
time. 

After the Tariff bill, so often referred 
to here this morning, was passed in 1867. 
the woolen industry of the country began 
to develop. It developed steadily until 
1883. Adverse Tariff legislation in that 
year suddenly checked the increase and 
marked the beginning of a diminishing 
source of supply. In 1889, with the pros- 
pect of amendment of the law in the in- 
terest of the woolgrowers and, of course, 
of the local rnanufacturers, another in- 
crease began; so that from 160,000,000 
pounds of wool produced here in 1867, we 
are now producing 311,000,000 of the 400.- 
000,000 pounds necessary to clothe our 
people every year. 

With Continued Protection There Will Be 
a Plentiful Supply of Wool. 

If the present rate of increase is con- 
tinued for the next nine years, the peo- 
ple of the United States will be In tlie 
happy condition of growing upon their 
ranches and ranges a sufficient number of 
sheep to produce an adequate supply of 
wool to clothe every man, woman, and 
child within the jurisdiction of the 
United States. If. on the other hand, it 
is thought wise to discontinue the policy 
which has heretofore prevailed, we will 



CARTER. BACON. 



IfiO 



begin that rapid decrease which has ever 
marked adverse legislation on this sub- 
ject. 

The tariff of 1894 which has been re- 
ferred to here furnishes an apt illustra- 
tion of just what evil influences bad 
legislation can produce. Mr. President, 
in the State from which I come sheep 
were worth about $3 per head when the 
shadow of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff bill 
appeared on the horizon. We lived to see 
the day in that State when less than 60 
cents a head was realized for fat mut- 
ton sheep. Wool, which can not be pro- 
duced under the conditions in this coun- 
try for less than 16 cents a pound, was 
forced into the market at from 6 to 8 
cents per pound. This loss could only 
eventuate in one result — the butchery of 
the flocks. They were driven to slaugh- 
ter at any price, because they could not 
be kept at a loss. The supply of wool 
decreased with a rapidity very remark- 
able to note. 

When the Dingley Bill Was Passed. 

When, in 1897, "a lucid interval" over- 
took the country again and the Dingley 
bill was passed, we observed an imme- 
diate response In the increase of the 
wool-growing industry. From that time 
to this we have continued to mark with 
almost unvarj'ing regularity the most re- 
markable increase that has been enjoyed 
by any industry connected with agricul- 
ture in this country from the first settle- 
ment to this blessed hour. Senators on 
the other side of the Chamber can not — 
and I am sure no Senator on this side of 
the Chamber will — desire to register a 
vote calculated to send us on the down- 
ward grade in this line of production. 

But, Mr. President, objection is made 
to the woolen schedule; and that, let me 
say, is the equivalent of assailing the 
duty on wool, for I ask you what avail 
a duty of 11 cents a pound on unwashed 
wool would be if the wool must be sold 
in the foreign markets instead of to the 
home mills? It is this market our friends 
abroad desire; the opportunity to sell 
the goods in this country is what they 
seek. That would result in the sale of 
our wool in foreign markets, where, I 
submit, no one would insist upon an in- 
telligent American being asked to engage 
in competition on the unequal terms. In 
the Argentine and in South Africa, ac- 
cording to figures furnished by the Con- 
sular Service, shepherds, or, as we call 



them in common parlance, "gheep herd- 
ers." are paid from $3 to $15 a month, 
and they are fed on the mutton cut out 
of the flock, in addition to a small con- 
tribution of a cereal of some sort. We. 
in turn, pay $40 per month to the sheep 
herders of our country, and you can not 
keep a sheep herder with the flock un- 
less you supply him with canned fruit 
and an up-to-date bill of fare such as you 
find in the average hotel of the country. 
It costs in the neighborhood of $10 to 
$15 a month to feed a sheep herder, not- 
withstanding he does his own cooking 
and keeps his own tent in order. Who 
doubts if the $3 and the $15 man is put 
in competition with the $40 man in herd- 
ing sheep that the $40 man must either 
come down to the $3 standard or go out 
of business? 

What Duty Would Be Adequate? 

Mr. BACON. The Senator is stating 
the extremes of the proposition. I want 
to ask the Senator, with his permission 
what, in his opinion, would be a neces- 
sary rate of duty in order to maintain 
the woolen industry in this country? I 
will put it in a more concrete form. Does 
not the Senator think, if the wool in- 
dustry had a duty of 50 per cent on an 
average upon imported articles similar 
to those produced in the United States, 
that that would give them the American 
market in sufficient degree to keep up 
those industries? 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, from the 
viewpoint of the wages paid, 300 per 
cent would not be adequate to-day. As it 
is, however, we will admit that our 
people are more competent and more in- 
telligent, and can, man for man, perform 
more and better service than that per- 
formed by the people of South America 
or any other part of the world engaged 
in sheep husbandry. Mr. President, I 
would state to the Senator from Georgia 
that upon this wool schedule I expect the 
Senate to vote for the rate that will make 
up the difference between the cost of 
production here and the cost in compet- 
ing countries, and not one farthing more. 

I will undertake to present to the Sen- 
ate, when that schedule is reached, what 
to my mind will amount to a mathemat- 
ical demonstration of just what we need 
in order to prosecute this business; and 
I shall expect the vote of the Senator 
from Georgia, of course, because it will 
be a reasonable proposition. 



170 



CARTER. 



Duty Is Seldom Added to the Price. 

Mr, CARTER. Mr. President, the Sen- 
ator from Georgia falls into an error 
which is very common in connection with 
the Tariff question. By the simplest form 
of mathematics they proceed to figure the 
total amount of the duty on a given ar- 
ticle, add that duty to the cos4:, and as- 
sume that to be the price, whereas in 
truth and in fact it is only rare indeed 
that an article sold in the American 
market is sold for the cost plus the duty. 

Now, I will cite a case. I noticed in 
the morning papers advertisements of 
woolen suits — I think six or seven of ad- 
vertisements of different stores in the 
city. It is coming along toward warm 
weather, and the wise merchant knows 
we will all be driven down town to buy 
a suit one of these days and is throwing 
out his advertisement in the most at- 
tractive form possible. I find advertised 
for $10 a suit of clothes made exclu- 
sively of wool, and well made, too. I 
took occasion to inquire as to the manu- 
facturer's charge for that suit of clothes, 
and I found that the cost of the suit of 
clothes to the retail merchant amounted 
to about $4, including the duty on the 
wool, the compensatory duty to the man- 
ufacturer, the protective duty to the 
manufacturer. The whole of the busi- 
ness, from start to finish, amounted to a 
little less than $4 for a suit of clothes. 

There is another suit at $7.20, cost not 
in duty on wool, not in duty on the cloth, 
but cost in the aggregate. The duty on 
the wool, the manufacturer's compensa- 
tory duty, the Protective duty to the 
manufacturer, the wages to the tailor, 
and all the pi'ofits added on, a $7.20 suit 
just cost the trade $2.80. 

American labor, competing in the 
steady market of the United States — 
a market which the Senator has well 
said is the best market in this world 
— will produce and sell the finished ar- 
ticle as cheaply as it can be produced 
and sold on our scale of living without 
reference to the amount of duty which 
Protects the market. 

A Common Error and Fallacy. 
The common error and fallacy which 
has been spread broadcast over this coun- 
try and is believed by many credulous 
people has been that upon which the 
Senator from Georgia figures to-day. He 
says the duty on the wool is 11 cents a 
pound. It takes 4 pounds of wool to 



make a yard of cloth. That makes 44 
cents of duty in the cloth; then 60 per 
cent Protective duty, with 44 of compen- 
satory duty to offset the :duty on the 
wool, and he puts them on top of the 
other and says the American manufac- 
turer adds all of these to his actual cost 
and his profit, and that we are paying 
it all. In order to see that that is a fal- 
lacy pure and simple it is only necessary 
to go to the next store and price the 
goods. 

In reference to the woolen schedule it 
is onlj'- necessary to look about and see 
how well people are clothed in this coun- 
try to observe the difference between 
now and tlie time when the country had 
free wool and free woolens. When I was 
a boy, growing up in the State of Ohio, 
we had free wool and free woolens, and 
I remember in those blessed old days that 
six young men living in my neighborhood 
were married in the same suit of store 
clothes, loaned out from one to another. 
The people had to make their own 
clothes. They relied on a foreign market. 
There was no labor or employment at 
home with which to make the money to 
buy anything; and if the theories of the 
Senator from Georgia could be put upon 
the statute books, crystallized into law, 
we would return to those good old days 
again. 

Farmers Did Not Enter into a Conspiracy. 

But the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Dol- 
liver] took occasion to remark that the 
shepherds and the weavers had joined 
together in what may be termed, if that 
odious language were imported, a "con- 
spiracy" for the purpose apparently of 
perpetually robbing the American peo- 
ple. The Senator did not mean to carry 
out that idea to its full natural conse- 
quence. The shepherds of the country 
are made up of the farmers of the United 
States, and the farmers of the United 
States, the men who have paid the taxes 
and fought the battles of this Republic 
from the beginning, can only conspire 
against the American people when they 
conclude to conspire against themselves. 

It is true there is a community of in- 
terest between the woolen manufacturer 
and the woolgrowcr, and where common 
interest prevails it is a stretch of im- 
agination indeed to assume that a con- 
ference regarding the common Interest 
amounts to a conspiracy against the com- 
munity. As I said before, Protection 



CARTER. HP.YBTTRN. 



171 



on the wool Is of no avail to the wool- 
grower unless you Protect the woolen 
manufacturer, so as to give the grower 
a market at the home mill. If the mar- 
ket is in England, what avail will be the 
Protective duty to the woolgrower in the 
United States, for in that distant mar- 
ket he must meet the $3 sheep herder 
from South America, the woolgrower 
from Cape Colony, the woolgrower from 
Australia, and, indeed, the competing 
wools of all the world. 

In that competition he can not engage, 
but instead will send the sheep to the 
slaughter pen, have them chopped up 
on the block and sold by the pound, and 
then, unhappily, when the flocks are 
gone, we will be dependent for our cloth- 
ing, wholly and solely, upon the wool- 
growers of distant climes and upon the 
manufacturers of other countries. 

In case of war or disturbance in the 
channels of commerce and trade on the 
ocean, we would be compelled to pay ex- 
cessive prices for our woolen goods, 
brought in through the perils of war, or 
else resort to cotton clothing. 

The loss would not be the loss solely 
of the individual who owns the sheep and 
sends them to the slaughterhouse, but it 
would be in the nature of a great na- 
tional loss, because we can not sacrifice 
the woolgrowing flocks of the country 
without striking down one of the pillars 
upon which rests the commercial and 
the industrial independence of these 
United States. 



No Promise of Downward Revision 
in the Platform of 1908. 

From the Congressional Record of May 5, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. I 
had not intended to discuss the lead 
schedule under consideration of this 
item, but inasmuch as you can not sep- 
arate the consideration of the principle 
here from the principle involved in the 
lead schedule we might as well meet it 
now. 

The reduction proposed by the House 
bill was probably along the line sug- 
gested a number of times, that there 
was some pledge of the party for a 
downward revision. I have on several 
occasions felt tempted to put into the 
Record the pledge of the party, and I 
will take advantage of the opportunity 
to do so at this time, because it has been 



stated that the Republican party was 
pledged to a revision downward. I will 
read the declaration of the national Re- 
publican party at the last Chicago con- 
vention. 

Idaho Protectionism. 

Mr. President, it was intimated at 
the beghming of this discussion that we 
might be open to a charge of bad faith 
if we did not recognize tliat as a pledge 
for downward revision. I know not with 
certainty what may have been spoken or 
promised in other States, but I desire, 
in connection with the declaration in the 
national platform, to advise the Senate 
of the promises that were made in the 
State which I in part represent in this 
body. I will read it: 

The Republican party stands, as it has 
always stood, for the principle of Protec- 
tion to American industries. TarifC 
schedules, as all other legislation, need 
revision from time to time as new con- 
ditions arise. We believe this revision 
should be made by the friends of this 
legislation, and not by its enemies. We 
contrast Democratic revision of the Tar- 
iff with Republican changes. Demo- 
cratic revision has always been followed 
by disaster; Republican revision by 
prosperity. Idaho is essentially a pro- 
ducer of raw material, and comes in 
competition with all the world in that 
direction. We believe that raw material 
should have protection, as well as the 
manufactured products, to the end that 
the laborer who produces both should 
be properl3'' Protected against his 
competitor in other lands. 

That is the political doctrine upon 
which we went before the people of the 
State of Idaho and asked their support 
to the Republican party. They re- 
sponded with a majority of almost 17,000 
votes in favor of those declarations. 
There is no promise in either of those 
platforms for a downward revision. Par- 
ticipating, as I did, in the campaign of 
that State, at no time did I concede 
that the Republican party was pledged to 
a revision downwai^d, but on all occa- 
sions I told^ the people to whom I spoke 
that the Republican party was pledged 
to an intelligent exercise of its judg- 
ment, untramraeled by any ulterior pur- 
pose or any outside promises. 

Duty on Lead Ore and Lead. 

I suggest to the Senator that the duty 
on the lead in ore before it is smelted 
being 1% cents, it reasonably follows that 
the duty upon the lead after it is ex- 
tracted from the ore should bear an in- 
creased rate, because there are between 



172 



HEYBURN. DOLLIVER. ALDRICH. 



these two points the wages and the labor 
and the investment of capital connected 
with the smelting of the ore. We want 
that investment of capital in the smelt- 
ers of this country; we want the wages 
paid to the thousands of men engaged 
in operating smelters paid In this coun- 
try; and for that reason we want a cor- 
responding duty upon the product of 
lead ore after it is extracted. It is the 
rule that runs all through the Tariff leg- 
islation. 

It may be interesting to Senators to 
know that in the first Tariff bill ever 
passed by the Congress of the United 
States there waj a duty of 1 cent a 
pound; that .it has always been consid- 
ered a proper subject for Protection, in 
view of the fact that it is all the product 
of some man's labor. That is the prin- 
ciple which lies behind it. 



Adverse Criticism of the Duties on 
Wool. 

From the Congressional Record of May 6, 
1909. 

JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER, of Iowa. 
. . . This whole top duty was put in our 
Tariff laws by a gentleman from Boston, 
who has filled the greater bulk of the 
volume 61 our Tariff hearings here In 
Congress for twenty years. 

Mr. ALDRICH. That duty was put in 
the Tariff by William McKinley. 
Whether he did it upon the advice of 
somebody else or not, I do not know; but 
it was put into the bill by William Mc- 
Kinley. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I might go on until 
dark exhibiting these absurdities. I say 
to you, gentlemen, that you can take the 
bill and dig more of them out in one 
night's careful investigation with the ad- 
vice of skilled persons 

Mr. ALDRICH. You have got them. 

Mr. DOLLIVER (continuing). Than I 
have given you or than you would have 
time to receive in the Senate Chamber 
of the United States. 

Mr. ALDRICH. There are plenty of 
skilled persons of that kind in this coun- 
try and in our competitors abroad study- 
ing this Tariff question every day for 
the purpose of evading the law and de- 
stroying the Protective system. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Do you dispute the 
truth of what I say about these things? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Then you ought not 



to attack men of chai^acter who have been 
sitting up nights with me. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not intend to do 
that; but I intend to put in the Rec- 
ord, and I would be glad to do so now. 
If it would not interrupt the Senator 

Mr. DOLLIVER. It would seriously 
disturb the continuity of my discourse. 

Similariiy of Democratic Criticisms. 

Mr. ALDRICH. When the Senator gets 
through. I will put in the Record state- 
ments made in the debate upon the act 
of 1897 by the late Senator from Ar- 
kansas, Mr. Jones, and the late Sen- 
ator from Missouri, Mr. Vest, precisely 
along the lines of the statements the 
Senator is now making. They could be 
taken word for word and read by the 
Senator from Iowa and would produce the 
same effect. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I said at the begin- 
ning that if I speak the truth, if I con- 
fine myself to facts, I will not be di- 
verted by the circumstance that some 
wayfarer in this wilderness in a former 
generation happened to strike the same 
things that have occurred to me. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I only made that ob- 
servation for the purpose of showing 
that the men who are trying to destroy 
this Tariff are still "doing business at 
the old stand." 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, I re- 
sent that statement. I am not trying 
to destroy this Tariff. I wish to leave it 
a Republican Tariff that can be defended 
in the United States; and before I con- 
clude I shall show the Senate that I 
stand not upon what Senator Jones, of 
Arkansas, said, but upon what Senator 
Aldrich, of Rhode Island, did in 1888. 

Free-Trade a Bad Remedy for Trusts. 

I spoke years ago in the Senate Cham- 
ber on the subject of the Protective-Tar- 
iff system and the speculative trusts. 
Very few listened to what I said, and 
I never have met anybody since who 
appeared to have had any familiarity 
with the literature which that speech 
created. And yet it is some satisfac- 
tion for me to know it laid down some 
broad principles and some sound prin- 
ciples, and among them this, that no 
trust can master this market place in 
the present state of American enterprise 
and the present abundance of American 
capital without first monopolizing the raw 
material with which business must be 



DOLLTVER. CrMMINS. 



173 



transacted. I have felt ever since that 
a wise thing for the Senate to do is 
not to put trust-made goods on the free 
list, a remedy which would fall equally 
upon the just and the unjust, and in- 
stead of killing the trust would be more 
likely to kill the struggling competitors 
and turn the entire domestic business 
over to the trust, or, if not, would at 
least sacrifice American labor, which 
must be entitled to our consideration, 
whatever may be the offenses of Amer- 
ican capital against our policy and our 
laws. 

Protection a Great Industrial Doctrine. 

I am not surprised to see Democrats 
change their views about the Protective 
Tariff. The foundation of it is secure. 
It met the judgment of the wisest men 
we have ever had in the United States. 
Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin and 
Abraham Lincoln believed in it in their 
day. It is no invention of modern times 
for the robbery of the many for the 
benefit of the few. It is a great indus- 
trial doctrine, lying at the foundation of 
our institutions, because our institutions 
would perish if we allowed the industrial 
level of the United States to fall to the 
industrial level of many of the old coun- 
tries of the world who are our competi- 
tors in productive enterprises. 

The Protective-Tariff doctrine is sound. 
It fails only through the inequality with 
which it is applied to our affairs. It 
fails only when avarice and greed, anx- 
ious to make more money, have such 
influence with Congress as to rewrite our 
Tariff laws, not in the interest of the 
public, not in the interest of the un- 
numbered millions of our people, but in 
the narrow, naked, sordid, personal in- 
terests of a few men scattered here and 
there in various sections of our beloved 
country. 



Not a Fair Campliance with the Re= 
publican Platform of 1908. 

From the Congressional Record of May 7, 
1909. 
ALBERT B. CUMMINS, of Iowa. I am 
just as fond of the Republican party as 
is the Finance Committee. Unlike Its 
distinguished chairman, I was born in 
the Republican party. I came of a race 
of Abolitionists, who were Republicans 
not because they thought a Republican 
management of the industries and of the 



commerce and of the finances of the 
country was more capable than a Demo- 
cratic administration, but because they 
believed the Republican party was more 
firmly and deeply devoted to the cause 
of humanity. 

I have lived many years In the atmos- 
phere of Protection. I was born and 
raised upon the Monongahela River, In a 
community and in an air that would 
have stifled the first breath of a Free- 
Trader. I came to my man's estate with 
the earnest conviction that Protection 
was not only the best policy for a great 
people like our own, but that it was the 
only policy under which our people could 
prosper and achieve the destiny that the 
Almighty has intended for the American 
Nation. 

Let no man. therefore, impeach my 
Republicanism because I question the 
duties that are attached to the various 
articles and commodities found In the 
pending bill. I resent in the beginning 
and I shall resent at every step of this 
bill through the Senate, any such insin- 
uation or intimation, whether directed to 
me or whether directed to any of my 
colleagues who hold the same general 
views that I do. 

The things that I do not like In this 
bill are plain and obvious. The things 
that I do not like are so clear that the 
man who runs may read, and I have 
sometimes thought that they were so 
atrocious that the man who reads will 
run as well. 

When I say "atrocious," I want there 
to say a word. I have expected to vote 
for this bill. I intend, unless something 
develops that has not yet made its ap- 
pearance, to vote for the bill. But if I 
do vote for it, I will vote for it because 
I believe it to be some improvement 
upon the duties of 1897 as tested by the 
conditions of the present moment. I shall 
not vote for it because I believe that 
it is a substantial revision of the Tariff 
duties or a fair compliance with the Re- 
publican platform of 1908. I desire that 
my position with respect to it shall be 
everywhere known. 

Effect of Tariff on Prices. 

Mr. FLINT. Mr. President, my atten- 
tion has been called — and I will address 
myself some few ''ays later to the sub- 
ject, if I have an opportunity — to one 
article of crockery which has been im- 
ported at the rate of 60 per cent. The 



174 



CUMMINS. FLINT. 



article costs, landed here, 5 cents or 
less. That same article is sold in the 
department stores throughout this coun- 
try at 25 cents. I ask the Senator — if 
that statement is correct, and I believe 
it is — what relation the 60 per cent duty- 
had on that article which cost 5 cents, 
when the consumer was' paying 25 cents 
In a department store for it? 

Mr. CUMMINS. None whatever. But 
the Senator from California, with his 
keen mind, must understand that there 
is no more relation between the case he 
puts and the case I am arguing than 
there was between the duty and the price 
in the case he suggests. When you ex- 
tend that observation to a commodity 
that Is on every table and which fills 
every store, you can not ask the Senate 
to believe that the duty imposed upon 
such an article has the same relation to 
it, or has the same effect upon it, that 
it does upon some gimcrack or toy that 
Is sold for an artificial price and sur- 
rounding which there is no relation, as 
you may well say, between the cost of 
production and the price of sale. 

But now answer me this question while 
you are on your feet: Are you prepared 
to say to the Senate that the price paid 
by the American people for the great. 
Important things which they use and con- 
sume is not affected in any way by the 
cost of production? Answer me whether 
that is true. 

Mr. FLINT. The question of the cost 
of production and the rate? 

Mr. CUMMINS. That is just what I 
mean. 

Tariff No Factor in the Selling Price to 
the Consumer. 

Mr. FLINT. I think I can show the 
Senator before we finish with this table 
that the illustration which I have given 
can be duplicated many times over. This 
illustration was merely the matter of a 
toy. I will now call the Senator's atten- 
tion to another article which has been 
brought to my attention that is in every- 
day use. The manufacturers of razors 
in Connecticut sell those razors to the 
Jobbing houses for $3.95 a dozen. The 
Jobbing house sells those razors for $5 
a dozen to the retailer, and the retailer 
charges $2 to the consumer for such ra- 
zors, or $24 a dozen. Was the rate of 25 
or 50 per cent on the $3.95 that this ar- 
ticle has been manufactured for In this 



country a factor i»i the selling price to 
the consumer? 

Mr. CUMMINS. I d® not know whether 
it is or not. It depends entirely upon 
the cost to the retailer selling the prod- 
uct. But I will not permit the Senator 
from California to divert the attention 
of the Senate from commodities that are 
in universal u'se, in which the consump- 
tion is large, and upon which there is an 
established price in every market; I will 
not permit him to divert the attention of 
the Senate from such things to toys or 
razors. 

Who Insisted upon Tariff Revision? 

It was not the manufacturer; it was 
not the lumberman; it was not the coal 
man; it was not the iron and steel man; 
it was not the glass man; it was not 
the cotton or the woolen man; it was 
not the oil man. During the whole agi- 
tation I never heard — you never heard — 
a demand from these people that the 
Tariff must be revised. The demand 
came from those who believed — whether 
they were right or wrong I will consider 
presently — that the duties upon many 
articles and commodities were too high; 
from those who believed that they were 
paying too much for the things they had 
to buy, and that excessive import duties, 
coupled with other conditions, were en- 
abling a favored few to reap inordinate 
profits; and therefore they wanted, as one 
of the steps leading to the remedy which 
they sought, a substantial reduction of 
these duties. It is not necessary at this 
moment to inquire how many people so 
believed or in what part of the country 
they lived. It is not necessarj^ to ask 
whether they were right or wrong In 
order to understand what the platform 
means. It is sufficient to say that It was 
under this demand from these people, 
whether they were many or whether they 
were few, that the party In its organized 
capacity promised a revision of the Tar- 
iff; and the Senator who imagines that 
he can satisfy these people by saying 
that a revision with higher duties or with 
substantially the same duties is a com- 
pliance with the platform little under- 
stands the relation between people and 
platforms. I do not say that a Senator 
has not a perfect right to carry into effect 
his own views; I do not say that he has 
not a perfect right to repudiate the plat- 
form. In a contest between conscience 
and a party declaration conscience ought 
always to win. But a Senator who hon- 



CUMMINS. SCOTT. SMOOT. GALLINGER. 



175 



estly believes that there should be mo 
substantial reduction ought not to delude 
himself with the Idea that he can an- 
swer the calls of his conscience and his 
platform at the same time. 

Shall We Crush the Independents for iht 
Sake of Hurting the Trusts? , 

Mr. SMOOT. Is it not also true that 
the United States Steel Company guar- 
antees to all of its employees that they 
will not lose any money on the purchase 
of stock from the company? 

Mr. CUMMINS. I think so. 

Mr, SCOTT. That is correct. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President 

Mr. SMOOT. One other thing. My at- 
tention has been occupied from morning 
until night at all times when I have not 
been in the Senate Chamber with men 
who are interested in the manufacturing 
of steel and iron. They have not been 
from the United States Steel Company, 
but from the independent manufactur- 
ers of this country. Does the Senator 
from Iowa feel that we ought to have a 
duty so low as to chastise, as it were, 
the United States Steel Company, and, 
by so doing, drive all of the independents 
out? 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I hope 
the Senator from Utah will not impute 
to me any desire to chastise. I do not de- 
sire to chastise the United States Steel 
Corporation. 

I intend to vote for a duty that will 
Protect these so-called "independent in- 
stitutions," although they are not inde- 
pendent, and although I believe they pro- 
duce their produot as cheaply as the 
United States Steel Corporation pro- 
duces its product. Do not misunderstand 
me when I say I do not believe they are 
independent; I do not mean they are in 
association with the United States Steel 
Corporation, but what I do mean is that 
the commanding power of the United 
States Steel Corporation in the trade 
robs these Institutions of their independ- 
ence, however much they mi^it like to 
be free and to follow their own eourse. 
So long as the United States Steel Com- 
pany will hold the prices up these inde- 
pendent companies gladly follow; but 
whenever the United States Steel Com- 
pany forces the prices down, these in- 
dependent companies must necessarily 
follow. Therefore they are not indepen- 
dent in any proper sense of the word. 



because their will does not fix the price 
of this commodity in the United States. 

Sixty Per Cent, of Steel Production Is 
N on -Trust. 

Mr. SMOOT. The independent steel 
manufacturers in the United States are 
manufacturing now about 60 per cent of 
the product of this country. 

Mr. CUMMINS. A little less than that, 
I think. 

Mr. SMOOT. That Is near enough, any- 
way. 

Mr. CUMMINS. They manufacture 
about 8 per cent less than that, I believe, 
although the Senator's information may 
be better upon that point than mine. 

Mr. SMOOT. Then we will grant 52 
per cent, although my information is that 
it Is about 60 per cent. There has not 
been an independent steel manufacturer 
before the committee or in my office who 
has not frankly admitted that the inde- 
pendent companies can not make steel 
and iron as cheaply as can the United 
States Steel Company. The question 
arises as to how far we should reduce 
these rates and whether they should be 
reduced so low that all of the indepen- 
dent steel manufacturers in this country 
can not live. So far as I am concerned, 
I want a rate which will Protect the in- 
dependent steel and iron manufacturers 
of this country so that they can live. 
I want the rate no higher and no lower 
than that. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I have 
the same purpose in view, but I will con- 
vince the Senator before I have finished 
that we ought to cut these duties ex- 
actly in two, and that would be a high 
Protection even for the independent com- 
panies. Of course, I am not speaking 
about iron ore, which I think ought to 
come in free. 

We Would Be at the Mercy of a Gigantic 
International Combine. 

Mr. GALLINGER. The testimony, as 
I understand, before the House commit- 
tee showed that the United States Steel 
Corporation can make all classes of 
steel products $2 a ton cheaper than the 
independent concerns in the country, 
which have about 60 per cent of the bus- 
iness. If you take the Tariff off in order 
to hit the United States Steel Corpora- 
tion, the independent concerns believe it 
would wipe them out of existence and 
give the United States Steel Corpora- 



176 



CUMMINS. ALDRICH. CLAPP. 



tion the command of the market, and 
then that corporation could combine with 
the foreign companies, and we would be 
at the mercy of a gigantic international 
combine. How would you get over that? 

There Would St/// Remain t/ie Lamp Post. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I reversed the quo- 
tation intentionally. I. however, have 
not ventured to look forward to that 
disastrous day on which all the indus- 
tries of the United States' and all the in- 
dustries of the world shall be concentra- 
ted in a single hand or a single board 
of directors. I suppose that when that 
day dawns, when a single mind directs 
the energies of the earth and controls the 
fortunes of mankind, so far as manufac- 
tures are concerned, there would still re- 
main the lamp-post for the common peo- 
ple. I know of no other remedy for that 
kind of slavery. I can not believe that 
it ever will be imposed upon either the 
people of the United States or the people 
of the earth; but if it ever is, you may 
be sure that the millions will find some 
way to shake those shackles from their 
wrists, just as they have found a way of 
emancipation in every other emergency 
in the history of the earth. Such is my 
answer to the last inquiry. 

I do not believe in lowering the duties 
to the point that will enable the foreign 
producer to take our market. I am argu- 
ing with respect to the degree of duties 
that will enable our producers to hold 
fairly our markets, but will prevent our 
producers from raising their prices above 
the fair American level. 

A iVIat/iematica/ Proposition. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator says we 
ought to reduce the profits of the United 
States Steel Company to a normal point. 
That is what I understood. He says it 
made a profit of nine dollars and some 
odd cents a ton more than it ought to 
have made. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Yes; I said $9.24 more 
than was necessary to enable that com- 
pany to pay 6 per cent upon its capital; 
and that, so far as the Government of 
the United States was concerned, our 
full duty would be done when we so ad- 
justed our schedules as to enable that 
company or any other to earn 6 per cent 
upon its capital. That is my proposition 
—not as stated by the Senator from 
Rhode Island. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator will see. 



as a mathematical proposition, that If 
steel rails were put upon the free list, 
the company would still be earning a 
dollar and some odd cents a ton more 
than they should have, according to the 
Senator's contention. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I am not concerned in 
that. I do not care. 

Mr. ALDRICH. As I understand the 
Senator from Iowa, he is proposing a new 
method for computing specific duties. He 
suggests that, in the first instance, we 
should ascertain what ought to be the 
capital of a company engaged in the pro- 
duction of any of these articles, and 
then determine what rate of Interest 
or dividends should be paid by that com- 
pany, and fix the rates according to the 
results which are ascertained by this 
method. 

Difference in Cost of Production. 

I supposed that we were proceeding 
upon the theory of taking into consider- 
ation the difference in the cost of pro- 
duction in our country and in compet- 
ing countries. That is the rule which 
I supposed was to apply in the consider- 
ation and preparation of these schedules. 
If the Senator from Iowa is correct, and 
if we are now to take into consideration 
the valuation of all the property in the 
United States, with a view of ascertain- 
ing as to what companies are overcapi- 
talized and as to what dividends shall be 
paid, we are to be led wide astray in the 
consideration of this question from any 
proposition which I have heretofore heard 
suggested. 



Revenue Tax Is a Tax That Falls on 
the Consumer. 

From the Congressional Record of May 7, 
1909. 

MOSES E. CLAPP, of Minnesota. By 
common acceptation to-day a Tariff for 
revenue upon non-competitive articles is 
called a "Free-Trade policy." England 
gathers through her custom-houses a 
small percentage more, I believe, per cap- 
ita than we do; yet no one would object 
to the phrase, "Free-Trade England." So, 
in dealing with that phase of the Tariff 
which relates solely to revenue, I shall 
refer to it as a Free-Trade revenue Tar- 
iff. 

Now, there are two certain peculiari- 
ties that attach to that kind of a Tariff, 
while it is perhaps true that in rare 



CLAPP. 



177 



Instances a Tariff levied upon a non- 
competitive article may be absorbed in 
the manufacture of another article and 
sold in competition with an article that 
does not contain that particular element, 
and thus not to be added to the cost, and 
while, again, a Tariff for revenue may be 
so slight upon a specillc object that it is 
lost in the transmission. But, as a rule, 
I undertake to say that a purely revenue 
Tariff upon noncompetitive articles in the 
end rests upon the consumption, and is 
properly called a "tax." 

Another peculiarity of a distinctive rev- 
enue Tariff is that unless you raise it 
high enough to deter consumption by the 
increased cost, the higher you raise that 
Tariff the more re-\enue you obtain from 
It. So the man who stands solely and 
squarely for a revenue Tariff must rec- 
ognize that he stands for a tax, in the 
last angjysis falling upon the consumer, 
and stands for a system that the higher 
the tax the more revenue. 

Protect life Tariff Not Added to Selling 
Price. 

Turning for a moment, now, to a dis- 
tinctive Protective Tariff, a Tariff upon 
imported articles in competition with our 
own production, the differences are ex- 
actly reversed. It is true that in some 
Instances a Protective Tariff finally rests 
and finds its last analysis in an added 
cost to the consumer, but that is not the 
rule. There are Senators in this Cham- 
ber, perhaps, who have been engaged in 
the hardware business. If there are, they 
can recall the day when steel wire nails 
were selling so close to the figure of the 
Tariff itself as to render it absolutely im- 
possible that that Tariff could be added 
to the productive cost of the home prod- 
uct in making the price of those nails. 
The Senators from Massachusetts will 
recall the time when cotton cloth at the 
factory sold so close to the Tariff itself 
as to absolutely preclude the idea that 
that Tariff was added to the home man- 
ufacturer's cost in the price. The Sen- 
ators from Michigan will recall the time 
when a barrel of salt, barrel and all, sold 
so close to the Tariff itself as to preclude 
the Tariff being added to the cost of the 
home salt in the final price. 

Protection's Benefit to Labor. 

A great deal has been said during this 
debate about labor and about the labor 
unions being more responsible for the 



scale of wages in this country than any 
Tariff provision or Tariff policy. While 
organization has effected wages, organi- 
zation is powerless to supply labor, as 
has been seen in every great depression. 
In relation to labor, it has been sug- 
gested that only a small percentage of 
the labor of America is under Protected 
industries. Mr. President, that to me is 
a very narrow and superficial view of the 
benefits of Protection. Some years ago 
General Hancock declared that the Tariff 
was a "local issue. If we measure the 
Tariff question by the greed and fear 
which prompt a man with one industry 
in his locality to demand Tariff with ref- 
erence alone to that production, then it 
is a local issue; but if we recognize it 
with reference to the entire people, It 
rises above a local issue. Take a great 
factory in Ohio, where there are a thou- 
sand men employed, and we will assume 
that that factory requires a certain de- 
gree of Protection. I want to ask the 
Tariff-for-revenue advocate if he believes 
the only people in this country Interested 
In that factory are the thousand men 
thus employed? If that is the limit, then 
there is doubtful warrant for that Tar- 
iff. But I ask, Is not the shoemaker who 
makes shoes for that thousand men. Is 
not the farmer who feeds that thousand 
men, interested in the question whether 
they shall be idle or whether they shall 
receive remunerative wages? Multiply 
that industry by the multiplied activities 
of this Nation, and you have a policy 
that reaches from one ocean to the other, 
with the welfare of a people interwoven 
In It at every point. 

Labor Is Protected When Its Product Is 
Protected. 

But it is said that while we Protect the 
article we do not Protect the laborer, 
and that the laborer comes here and 
comes in competition with the laborer 
who originally was here. Mr. President, 
this, too, is narrow and superficial. To 
Illustrate: Here is a man in Geneva en- 
gaged in making watches. Here is an- 
other man in Elgin engaged in making 
watches. I know no way save one, too 
brutal to suggest, by which the Elgin 
watchmaker can get rid of the personal 
competition somewhere of the Geneva 
watchmaker. In the world's wide equa- 
tion of prices and production, he has got 
to meet that personal competition. 

But we will assume that there Is a 



178 



CLAPP. CARTER. HEYBURN. 



difference in the wage scale between 
Geneva and Elgin and we put that dif- 
ference in a Tariff law. The Geneva 
watchmaker comes to Elgin. Then the 
Tariff-for-revenue-only man exclaims, 
"You have done no good; you have given 
no Protection, because the Geneva work- 
man has come to Elgin." 

Mr. President, does it make no differ- 
ence to the Elgin watchmaker whether he 
must compete with the Geneva man in 
Geneva on the Geneva scale of prices or 
compete at Elgin on the Elgin scale of 
prices? Does it make no difference to 
the American shoemaker whether, when 
he furnishes the shoes for the Geneva 
watchmaker, "he must furnish them on 
the Geneva scale of prices or furnish 
them on the Elgin scale of prices? Does 
It make no difference to the American 
farmer, if he is to feed the Geneva 
watchmaker, whether he shall feed that 
watchmaker upon the Geneva scale of 
prices and pay the freight, as he must 
upon the article which goes out of his 
land Into world-wide competition, or 
whether he saves that freight and feeds 
the Geneva watchmaker on the Elgin 
scale of. prices? 

It seems to me that that argument Is 
simply unanswerable, and yet in this dis- 
cussion we seem to have lost sight of 
both these points. 



The Logic of Protective and Com- 
pensatory Duties. 

From the Congressional Record of May 7, 
jgog. 
THOMAS H. CARTER, of Montana. 
Mr. President, the principle applicable 
to this schedule will run through all 
of the schedules we may be called 
upon to consider in connection with 
this bill. It is of no avail to the grow- 
er of wool to have a duty on the wool 
Imported into this country if he Is 
bound by conditions to ship his wool 
to foreign markets for sale. The duty 
Is of avail to him only with the Amer- 
ican market place to sell in. I should 
like to have the Senator from Mis- 
souri explain how 1 cent or 10 cents 
a pound duty on lead would be of any 
use whatever to lead producers in Mis- 
souri, if those lead producers are de- 
prived of the American markets In 
which to sell their load; and the Amer- 
ican market for the sale of lead Is 
dependent upon the continuance of the 



manufacture of lead Into the various 
forms In which It Is useful to com- 
merce and to the consumer. Put white 
lead on the free list, or reduce the 
duty on white lead so that it ca» not 
be successfully manufactured in this 
country, and a duty of 10 cents a pound 
on the lead contained in Missouri ore 
is not better than a duty of one-tenth 
of 1 cent per pound, because, in 
either event, the lead of Missouri must 
be sold in the open markets of the 
world, instead of in the Protected mar- 
ket of the United States. The logic 
of the situation drives the Senator 
from Missouri either to abando-n his 
position for any duty upon lead or 
constrains him to support by a reason- 
able compensatory duty the American 
manufacturer of lead products, so that 
he may have a market at home for 
that which is produced in Missouri. 

It seems to me these propositions 
are elemental. A producer of so-called 
"raw material" in the United States 
can in no case be benefited by a Pro- 
tective duty on his so-called "raw ma- 
terial" if all the compensatory and 
Protective duties are taken off the fin- 
ished product. 



Difference of Wage Cost in the Min- 
ing and Smelting of Lead Ore. 

From the Congressional Record of May 7, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
Great concentrating works and smel- 
ters can be built in Germany or In 
Mexico for a third of the amount at 
which they can be built In this coun- 
try. We therefore lose the wages rep- 
resented by the construction of these 
works to the laborers of this country 
and give it to those abroad. 

That is one of the very largest Items 
that enters into this proposition. We 
want the wages paid for mining the 
ore paid to American miners. We wamt 
the wages and the expenditures Inci- 
dent to the extraction of the lead from 
the ore paid to the laborers of this 
country. In our Stale we purchase 
something like |2, 000, 000 worth of ma- 
chinery in our country for the purpose 
of converting lead ore Into lead bul- 
lion or into concentrates. 

That machinery and those works are 
produced by American labor out of 
American material. Would you substl- 



HEYBURN. ALDRICH. JONES. 



179 



tute the foreign labor and the foreign 
material for that? I think not, when 
the Senator comes to think of it. The 
whole prineiple of Protection is that 
we may draw the benefits of labor 
and Investment to ourselves, so that 
the money may stay In this country 
and be distributed according- to the en- 
terprise. 

Lead ore can be mined in Mexico 
for one-third of what it costs to mine 
it at any point in the United States. 
The machinery for the purpose of con- 
verting it from ore .to bullion can be 
constructed for one-third of what it 
can be constructed for in the United 
States. The wage paid in the stage of 
transformation of ore in the ground to 
bullion on the floor is three times as 
much In this country as it Is in Mexico 
or In Germany. It costs here a third 
more in wages either to mine or to 
mill or to smelt. In Germany they 
take the ore from foreign countries; 
they ship it from Australia to Ger- 
many; they convert it into bullion 
there; and they will send It to this 
country either as lead bullion or as 
white lead or as some other manufac- 
tured product of that bullion. They 
have at all times 33 1-3 cents the best 
over us after paying the expenses of 
bringing It from Australia to the 
Rhine, and from there to the seaboard 
of the United States. Those are the 
figures. They are not theories. 



Increased Cost of Living Is Owing 
Almost Entirely to the Increase in 
the Price and Value of Agricultural 
Products. 

From the Congressional Record of May 8, 
1909. 
NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. The committee is hearing peo- 
ple all the time. The town is full of 
people like the president of the organ- 
ization which the Senator from Nebras- 
ka mentioned, but did not specifically 
name. The hotels in this city are 
crowded with people, with representa- 
tives of industries, of laboring men, of 
people who are engaged in all these 
various Industries. There is not a day 
passing but some deputation of peo- 
ple is here asking the committee 
to make changes in these schedules. 
NiMe hundred and ninety-nine out of 



one thousand are people who are ask- 
ing us to increase the rates contained 
In the Senate bill. 

The Senator from Nebraska talks 
about the consumers and the interests 
of the consumers not having been rep- 
resented before the committee. Who 
are the consumers In the United 
States? Is there any class of people 
in this country, except a very limited 
number, who are consumers and not 
producers? Are they better entitled to 
consideration than anybody else? The 
consumers of Nebraska are more In- 
terested in the preservation of the 
Protective-Tariff system than they are 
In any other public policy which Is In- 
velved in this bill or before Congress. 
Their prosperity, If you please, which 
I have witnessed with pleasure, has 
been derived from the fact that they 
had in the United States a market for 
all their products. I have seen the 
products of Nebraska and of the other 
agricultural States mount year by 
year, month by month, day by day, un- 
til the increase In the cost of every- 
thing in this country Is owing almost 
entirely to-day to the increase in the 
price and the value of agricultural 
products. Those people have not been 
here, except as they are here by their 
representatives, demanding a reduction 
of duties. 

I had a conversation this morning 
with a gentleman from North Dakota, 
the chairman or the president of a 
committee of an organization, the So- 
ciety of Equity in the United States. 
What did he ask for? He said he rep- 
resented the farmers in the West. He 
is a very intelligent man. What did 
he say? Was he seeking evidence to 
destroy the Industries of the United 
States? No. He was asking for agri- 
cultural products a proper Protection, 
and he said that what he wanted for 
himself he was willing to give to 
others. 



I Want to Protect the American La- 
borer. 

From the Congressional Record of May 8. 
1909. 
WESLEY L. J®NES, of Washington. 
This is the testimony of one of the 
great corporations having practically 
full control over this industry. This 
gentleman goes into details and evl- 



180 



JONES. HALE. GALLINGER. CARTER. 



(lently knows his business. He says 
the only differential needed l3 about 
two-eighths of a cent. That is entitled, 
of course, to great consideration, and 
we ought to have some testimony of 
somebody -who is equally acquainted 
with the business to controvert it. 
That i.s all I am trying to get at. I do 
not yet know how I am going to vote 
on this proposition, but I want to 
know what the differential ought to be. 
I want to Protect the American la- 
borer. I do not care anything about 
who owns this lead or these smelters 
and all that sort of thing. There Is 
no question about a great difference in 
cost of smelting in Mexico and this 
country, and If five-eighths differential 
Is necessary to maintain our wages, I 
want five-eighths cent put on. If It 
is not necessary, I do not want to have 
it put on. 



Information Obtained for the Work 
of Revision. 

From the Congressional Record of May 8, 
1909. 

EUGENE HALE, of Maine. The Com- 
mittee on Finance in the Senate was 
at work day and night and Sundays 
upon the House bill, as reported to 
that body, getting information of the 
different schedules, and spending days 
and weeks getting ready for its report 
when the nominal and formal report of 
the bill should come from the House 
as the action of that body. 

The Senator is entirely and abso- 
lutely wrong and without any concep- 
tion of the situation when he says that 
in twenty-four or twelve hours after 
receiving the bill from the House the 
Senate committee concluded and re- 
ported It as though the whole thing 
was a subject of a few hours' consid- 
eration. 

There Is not a member of the com- 
mittee here who does not know that 
our time was all engrossed, confisca- 
ted, everything else abandoned, while 
we considered the propositions, the 
schedules of the House bill, for weeks 
before the formal bill was presented, 
and there was no Inconsiderate action 
on the part of the committee in twelve 
hours In reporting. 

Tlie action of the committee has not 
been in any way the action of a com- 
mittee dealing with a subject In a 



hole, in a corner, or in a private way. 
I have seen five or six revisions of the 
Tariff in my service, and I have never 
seen, and no Senator has ever seen, so 
much information brought to the serv- 
ice of the Senate as the Committee of 
Finance has brought to the service of 
the Senate in the discussion and con- 
sideration of this subject. 

Information As to Export Prices. 

Mr, GALLINGER. Just a word, Mr. 
President. I want to say to the Sena- 
tor that, in respoijse to a resolution I 
submitted, which the Senate passed, 
calling for information as to export 
prices as compared with domestic 
prices in foreign countries, a volumin- 
ous reply has been received from our 
representatives abroad, every word of 
which I have read with great gratifica- 
tion, because it shows that the custom 
that is to a slight extent prevalent in 
this country of selling goods abroad at 
less than at home is universal through- 
out the world, as Senators will dis- 
cover if they read that document. 

Mr. HALE. By other nations? 

Mr. GALLINGER. By other nations. 

Mr. CARTER. The trick of selling 
shop-worn goods at any price obtain- 
able Is current all over the world. 



Founders of the Government Did Not 
Intend That the People Should Be 
Governed by Commissions. 

From the Congressional Record of May 8, 
1909. 

THOMAS H. CARTER, of Montana. 
Mr. President, the Senator from Ne- 
vada suggests that we are too numer- 
ous to think [laughter], and that we 
ought to delegate the task to a com- 
mission. That Senator seems to be- 
lieve that if we think at all we think 
Inaccurately and reach conclusions that 
are ill-advised and little justified. 

Mr. President, undoubtedly the Sena- 
tor Is correct In saying that there 
should be a commission to digest the 
matter in these books; but we have a 
commission. I will put the Ways and 
Means Committee of the House of Rep- 
resentatives and the Finance Commit- 
tee of the Senate of the United States 
against any equal number of men on 
this eartli as experts to digest infor- 
mation and place It before the Con- 
gre.'^s in convenient form. Where will 



CARTER. LODGE. 



181 



you get a body of experts superior In 
judgment, possessed of more accurate 
knowledge or equal experience? The 
Senate and the House, through their 
committee organizations, undertake, 
and wisely, too, to boll down these var- 
ious elements of knowledge into defi- 
nite form for ready use in the discus- 
sion of matters upon this floor. 

The reports of the committees of 
the Senate and House are concise and 
clear. If they are wrong, we must 
suffer from one of the Infirmities of 
our system of government and let ex- 
perience, which may be costly, correct 
our erring judgment. We will do the 
best we can. 

It has been frequently suggested 
here with reference to all kinds of 
questions that commissions be appoint- 
ed. I must say that, on general prin- 
ciples, I do not fancy the policy of 
delegating congressional power or ab- 
dicating congressional functions. I 
have an abiding faith, sir, in the wis- 
dom of the founders of this Govern- 
ment of ours, and let it be understood 
that they did not intend that the 
American people should be governed 
by commissions. 

They intended that the people should 
be governed by law; and they desig- 
nated in the organic law itself the ma- 
chinery by which laws could be placed 
upon the statute books and kept there 
and construed while they remained. 
Everj' departure from the intention of 
the fathers as written in the Constitu- 
tion will weaken this Government of 
ours in the minds of the people, where 
it should be strong; it will weaken It 
in the confidence of the world, where 
it should be respected. 

Faith In Congress as a Tariff Commis- 
mission. 

1 have great faith In a commission 
made up of the picked men from 391 
districts In the United States. I think 
the House of Representatives is a 
splendid commission. Some 14,000,000 
electors in 391 districts "pick the best 
man in each district and send him 
down to the Council Chamber, the 
House of Representatives, to consti- 
tute a commission." We call them 
"Representatives." 

We are beginning to svftter In this 
country from a bureaucratic reign. 
There Is a germ which quickly lodges 
in every bureau and creates a con- 



suming thirst for power. Every bu- 
reau you create begins at once to 
!q:)read Its tendrils out. seeking addi- 
tional jurisdiction, \intil it absorbs 
everything in sight, and then quarrels 
for more. We witnessed here within 
a few years a meager appropriation of 
$5,000 to start a bureau, and within 
five years we appropriated $5,000,000 
to keep It going for one year, and that 
is only the beginning. 

Mr. President, I believe in this Gov- 
ernment being maintained, as nearly 
as may be. In its original simplicity; 
and I have no sympathy with, nor re- 
spect for, the new doctrine of duplicat- 
ing Congress eternally In the form of 
commissions. From another point of 
view, the appointment of commissions 
to do our work is an abdication, which, 
according to current view, absolves 
Congress from responsibility. 



This Is a Nation of Producers. 

From the Congressional Record of May 8, 
1909. 

HENRY CABOT LODGE, of Massa- 
chusetts. There is one other point, Mr. 
President, that I want to make, which 
was alluded to by the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Aldrich] this morn- 
ing, and in regard to which the Sena- 
tor from Georgia yesterday spoke — the 
oppression that Is being visited on the 
consumer. I am not going to waste 
any of our much-wasted time on that 
old worn-out, exploded fallacy that the 
Tariff duty is added to every article of 
domestic products which Is bought or 
sold. I merely wish to touch upon this 
myth of a consuming public which is 
being oppressed for the benefit of a 
few manufacturers and operatives. 
Where is this separate and isolated 
public of consumers? The people who 
are consumers only, who neither toll 
nor spin, are so few In this countrj^ 
that they are negligible and ought to 
be neglected. This is a Nation of pro- 
ducers. The Senator from Georgia re- 
ferred to the manufacturing and me- 
chanical pursuits as if those were the 
ones especially nurtured at the expense 
of this mythical public of consumers. 

Mr. President, I am afraid he forgot 
that according to the census of 1900, 
the last census, now nearly ten years 
old, there were 7,085,000 persons earn- 
ing wages in mechanical and manufac- 



182 



LODGE. 



turlng pursuits and Industries which 
are all covered by the duties of the 
Tariff law. That Indicates a popula- 
tion supported by these industries of 
from thirty to thirty-five millions. 
Who took those 35,000.000 people out 
of the ranks of American citizenship? 
Who separated them from the rest of 
the American public? They are a pret- 
ty larg-e portion, Mr. President, of the 
citizenship of the United States. When 
did they cease to be consumers? 

According to the same census, there 
were 10,000,000 people engaged in agri- 
culture, 1,200,000 in professional pur- 
suits, 5,500,000 In domestic and per- 
sonal service, 4,778,000 In trade and 
transportation, and 7,000,000 in manu- 
facturing and mechanical pursuits; in 
all, 29,000,000 people In gainful trades 
and occupations earning money. Take 
the people they support, the mouths 
that those 29,000,000 workers feed, and 
you have practically the whole popula- 
tion of the United States. 

Too Late to Challenge the System of 
Protection. 

I come from a great manufacturing 
region — the region of New England 
and New York and Pennsylvania and 
New Jersey and Delaware. We are 
full of manufacturing industries, built 
up under the system of Protection. It 
Is too late in the day now to talk 
about whether that system was wisely 
or unwiselj' adopted. It has been prac- 
tically the policy of the United States, 
with some fluctuations, some ups and 
downs In rates, since 1816. Under this 
system great Industries have been 
built up. If you undertake to wreck 
that system at a blow. If you deal 
harshly with all this complicated ma- 
chinery of business and production, 
you will throw that vast manufactur- 
ing population into distress and mis- 
ery. Ten years ago more than 30,000,- 
000 people were dependent on those 
engaged in manufacturing and me- 
chanical pursuits. They are your mar- 
ket, I say to the wheat-growing States 
of the West; they are your best mar- 
ket, a market that can not be taken 
from you, for a large part of all that 
you raise and all that you produce. 

The Prosperity of All Depends upon the 
Prosperity of Each. 
This debate has arisen upon the 



question of the production of lead. My 
State has no lead mines and no smel- 
ters; it is not interested in lead pro- 
duction. If I were to be guided solely 
by a narrow, local, selfish interest. I 
sliould say, cut these duties down or 
make lead free, If you please, so that 
those engaged in the mechanical In- 
dustries can buy these products a little 
lower; but. In my belief, Mr. President, 
nothing could be worse for my people 
than to indulge Ixk any such plan as 
that. The prosperity of Idaho and 
Utah and Missouri and Colorado Is 
part of the prosperity of my people. I 
want to see them have the same Pro- 
tection which I demand and which 
my constituents demand wherever Pro- 
tection is needed for our Industries. 
The great mechanical and manufactur- 
ing industries of this country can take 
no other position; and those who at- 
tempt to break them down run the 
risk of bringing on a business disaster 
to which nothing that we have ever 
had would be comparable. You can 
not shift a system like this In a min- 
ute. Why, Mr. President, at the bot- 
tom of this system lies the Industrial 
Independence of the United States. 

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Ba- 
con] talked to us about the cotton 
growers, and he said there was no 
Protection on cotton. The prosperity 
of the cotton grower, the prosperity of 
the South, is probably more keenly de- 
sired by the State I represent in part 
than that of any other portion of the 
country, because upon the South's 
great staple our greatest Industry de- 
pends. 

When the South Was Helpless for Lack 
of Protection. 

But, Mr. President, the economic 
system which the Senator from Geor- 
gia was advocating yesterday, was 
tried in the South. They always re- 
sisted the Protective Tariff in the old 
times; and although they could not 
prevent the adoption or the continu- 
ance of the policy, they refused to take 
advantage of It. They left their rivers 
unused and their mines unopened. 

That great and splendid country was 
devoted to the production of a single 
staple. The dark hour of trial came 
upon them. Never was greater valor, 
greater military skill, greater self- 



LODGE. HEYBURN. 



183 



sacrifice, greater devotion shown to 
any cause tiian the Southern people 
showed to their cause; but when the 
lines of the blockade drawn around 
their ports were tightened and the 
foreign trade, on which they had de- 
pended, and on which they would have 
had the whole country depend if they 
had had their way, was cut off, they 
could not clothe or supply their armies; 
they could not get medicine; they could 
not make paper or iron or steel or 
pottery. They were in a state of help- 
less industrial dependence. The worst 
enemy that the South had to meet in 
that great struggle was their own 
economic weakness. 

Mr. President, we have built up un- 
der this policy of Protection the In- 
dustrial independence of the United 
States. It was the dream of Alexander 
Hamilton. It has been fulfilled. We 
have built It up and to-day the South, 
thank Heaven, is taking advantage of 
it and is beginning, at least, to get her 
share of the great riches which nature 
has given to her. But to go to work 
and tear it wildly down on an idea of 
general reduction, for the sake of re- 
duction here and there, would be dis- 
astrous. The only way to deal with 
this question is to move cautiously and 
carefully, to deal with each paragraph 
as it comes up and on the merits of 
each case as it is presented to us. 

What the Republican Party Pledged It- 
self to. 

The pending bill, as a matter of fact, 
Is full of reductions from end to end, 
but nobody ever pledged me to a re- 
vision downward any more than to a 
revision upward. What the Republican 
party pledged itself to, and so far 
pledged me, was to a Tariff revision 
made on Protective lines. I supposed 
that we would come here in this body 
and in the other House and revise 
the Tariff for the best interests of the 
whole country — agricultural, industrial, 
and every other; that if it were wise 
to reduce a duty we would reduce it; 
If it were wiser to keep it tlie same 
we would keep it the same; if an in- 
dustry needed, and the facts showed 
that further Protection was needed, we 
would give it that further Protection. 
As a matter of fact, the revision gen- 
erally is downward. 



The Object Is to Keep the American 
Laborer Employed. 

From the Congressional Record of May 8, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
The wages paid in the lead mines in 
the United States in the year 1907 were 
$18,548,248. You can take the number 
of tons of ore — I do not mean the crude 
ore that has to be concentrated — and 
divide it, and you will readily see how 
much it costs to mine a ton of ore. 
The wages paid in Mexico to produce 
the same quantity of ore in 1907 would 
be $6,182,749. There is a comparison 
between the cost in Mexico and the 
cost in the United States that certainly 
must make an impression upon the in- 
quiring mind. The same ore, for 
which wages amounting to $18,548,248 
were paid in this country, would have 
been produced in Mexico for $6,182,749. 
Who would benefit by it being pro- 
duced in Mexico? What wage-earner 
is it that we. ought to take into con- 
sideration? Who would be benefited 
by the paying of $6,182,749 out for 
wages in Mexico when we ought to 
have paid $18,548,248 to American min- 
ers? I will give you Spain, for in- 
stance. The same product in Spain 
could have been mined for $9,274,124, 
as against the $18,548,248 paid in this 
country. 

The object of this legislation is to 
keep the American laborer busy — to 
keep him employed. When he is idle 
he Is not only unfruitful, but he is ex- 
pensive. The law that will keep em- 
ployed the largest percentage of the 
labor in the United States is the best 
law, and it is the only law that we 
should consider. The law that puts 
out of employment a single man in 
the United States who ought to be em- 
ployed is bad to that extent. The law 
that would put out of employment 500,- 
000 men can not certainly commend 
Itself to anybody. 

Now, Mr. President, I want to keep 
before Senators the fact this is a ques- 
tion of whether or not the money we 
pay for mining these ores shall be 
paid in our country or paid somewhere 
else. If we pay it abroad, it never 
comes back. I want to keep before 
them the question as to whether or 
not the millions and millions of dol- 
lars expended in these mining plants 
shall be expended in this country or 



184 



HEYBURN. NELSON. DOLLIVER. 



in a foreign country. If that money 
is expended abroad, as I have said, It 
never comes back. 



Tired of Being Lectured About the 
Orthodoxy of the Republican 
Party. 

From the Congressional Record of May lo, 
1909. 
KNUTE NELSON, of Minnesota. Mr. 
President, I am tired of being lectured 
about these schedules and about the 
orthodoxy of the Republican party. 
Let us recognize the fact that with a 
Tariff bill it is just as it is with the 
River and Harbor bill. There is no 
use disguising it. You tickle me and 
I tickle you. You give us what we on 
the Pacific coast want for our lead 
ore and for our citrus fruit, and we 
will tickle you people of New England 
and give you what you want on your 
cotton goods. 

That is all I desire to, say In reply 
to the eloquence of the Senator from 
Massachusetts the other day. How pa- 
triotic he was! When you boil down 
the patriotism you come to the same 
basis as that of the River and Harbor 
bill. You vote for my creeks, you vote 
for my harbors, you vote for my riv- 
ers, and I will vote for yours, and shut 
my eyes, and it is all right. 

So it is with the Tariff bill. The 
people that stand between these two 
elements — the New England element 
and the Mountain States — are ground 
between the upper and the lower mill- 
stone. We are willing to accept a rea- 
sonable reduction on our products. How 
is it with the rest of you? 

Mr. BORAH. How much wheat does 
your State produce? 

Mr. NELSON. I do not recall the 
millions of bushels produced in the 
State of Minnesota, but I desire to tell 
the Senator tliat the Tariff on wheat 
which Is on the statute books has not 
done us a particle of good. It would 
be like a Tariff on cotton, because up 
to this time we have been exporting 
from one hundred and fifty to two 
hundred and fifty million bu.shols of 
wheat a year. The price of our wheat 
is fixed by the Liverpool price, the ex- 
port price, and no duty up to tliis time 
has helped us. It may be possible that 
In the future it may help us, when the 



great Provinces to the north of us have 
greater development. 

Minnesota Farmers Do Not Want Pro- 
tection. 

Then we may need Protection against 
it, but we will not go to the consumer 
and say, "We want Protection against 
Canadian wheat, because it costs us 
more to raise our wheat than It does 
over across the line In Canada." We 
are not going to put it on any such 
petty ground as you put everything 
that you set up in connection with the 
Tariff bill. It is all put on the shoul- 
ders of the poor laboring man. The 
poor laboring man has to bear the in- 
iquities of the refining trust. He is 
compared with the peons of Mexico. I 
wish they would take the Senators 
who are so interested in the smelting 
and mining trusts and compare them 
with the peons of Mexico. If I want 
nformation about smelting and mining, 
I would not think of going to the 
books which the Senator from Montana 
piled up. I would look right in front 
of me to that seat [indicating] for In- 
formation. 

Mr. BORAH. The duty on wheat has 
been increased 5 cents. 

Mr. NELSON. That was not with my 
consent. We are quite willing to have 
a reduction, even on cabbages and po- 
tatoes and lettuce and all garden 
"sass," and even dried apples, to which 
the Senator referred a moment ago. 
We in Minnesota do not, I may say, 
raise any dried apples, but still we are 
willing to have the rates reduced on 
those apples. We use them, and in the 
interest of the consumer I favor a 
reduction. 



Tariff on Earthenware Illustrates 
the Wisdom of Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of May 11, 
1909. 

JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER, of Iowa. 
Mr. President, I spoke the otlior day In 
an informal way of the earthenware 
schedule. I stated at the time that, 
so far as my investigations had enabled 
me to go, there was no schedule In 
the Tariff law that had more perfectly 
Illustrated the wisdom of the Protect- 
ive doctrine. 

I have always felt a special Interest 
In It, because It Is one of the few re- 



DOLLIVER. ALimiCH. 



185 



maining handicrafts of the country 
and of the world. From almost the 
beginning- of time it has been the In- 
dustry of every people attaining even 
a very moderate civilization. We had 
a great deal of difficulty to start the 
earthenware industry in the United 
States, notwithstanding the evident 
fact that Providence intended us to 
make our own dislies and our own 
earthenware, having put the material 
as a natural resource under nearly ev- 
ery section of the United States. 

I have studied with great care this 
earthenware schedule, and there are 
several things about it that differenti- 
ate it from many other schedules in 
the Tariff law. One of them is that 
the rates are ad valorem and not on 
their face excessive. The other is that 
in operation they have fully justified 
the most orthodox definition of the 
Protective-Tariff doctrine. Many years 
ago a great Democratic Secretary of 
the Treasury defined Protection in a 
way that, it seems to me, has never 
been improved upon. He said that the 
rates ought to be high enough to en- 
able the home producer to meet the 
importer of foreign goods in the Amer- 
ican market place on terms of fair 
competition. 

That ideal of Protection is very sel- 
dom realized in our Tariff schedules. 
If I have seen the correct statistics, it 
has been almost perfectly realized in 
the earthenware schedule. There is 
not an item where the producer is not 
face to face wi'th an active, vigorous, 
and sometimes damaging foreign com- 
petition. 

German Competition Has Risen Steadily. 

If you will examine the table of im- 
ports you will find that from the com- 
mon earthenware up to the highest 
priced china our home manufacturers 
are every day face to face with a 
lively competition. We have never 
even decreased the competition that 
has come in for nearly a generation 
from England, although our own peo- 
ple have been able to hold their own 
against that. The German competi- 
tion has risen steadily In practically 
every department of earthenware pro- 
duction, and especially In the hig-her 
grades of china, until it is to-day 
larger than it ever was before, and is 
productive of one of the most substan- 



tial revenues that the Government de- 
rives from any source. 

Our friends on the Pacific side of the 
world, with very great skill, starting 
in with native potteries, illustrating 
their national art, have accurately 
copied all the finer wares that are pro- 
duced in the United States and in Ger- 
many and in Austria and France. That 
kind of importation is rising steadily 
every year. 

For one, I desire to see the earthen- 
ware industry pot only preserved In- 
tact in the United States, but I should 
like to see it extended to every State 
in the Union. I find that in my own 
State, underlying nearly all our coal 
measures, is a variety of clay corre- 
sponding with the finest varieties 
known anywhere in the United States, 
and some, we think, as fine as can be 
found in the world. I know that Is 
true of nearly every Southern State. 

I think it is a very modest expecta- 
tion of the friends of the Protective 
doctrine that we should make our own 
dishes and the ordinary utensils of the 
kitchen and of the dining room In the 
United States, and it is because I be- 
lieve so radical a reduction in those 
forms of earthenware that are already 
pressing our own home production 
would be damaging to that great In- 
dustrial interest in the United States 
that I shall feel constrained to* vote 
against the amendment of the Senator 
from Georgia. 



Glass Needs Protection and Should 
Have It. 

From the Congressional Record of May ii, 
1909- 
NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. I think the average duties in the 
glass schedule are over 50 per cent; I 
think some of them are greatly above 
50 per cent; but if any article manu- 
factured in the United States needs 
Protection and should have it. it is 
glass. It is almost entirely a question 
of labor. They take the crude ma- 
terials from the earth and expend a 
great deal of tinie and labor upon them 
up to the finished product; and the 
present rates of duty have been but 
fairly Protective. The Importations 
are very large of all descriptions of 
glass and always have been. I think 
we are gaining a little upon the for- 



186 



ALDRICH. FLINT'. 



eign production, but very little, and 
this industry is one of the industries 
which deserves our care and should 
have it to the extent of the Protection 
It needs. 

Mr. HALE. The competition is In- 
tense. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The competition Is 
Intense, in Belgium and In every other 
part of the world. 

Mr. HALE. Let me ask the Senator 
from Nevada before he sits down what 
he proposes as a remedy by action of 
Congress for this remarkable dispro- 
portion between the prices of the man- 
ufacturers, with which w^e deal in a 
Tariff bill, and the prices that are af- 
forded to the consumer by the jobber 
and at last by the retailer? One of 
the things that Congress is finding 
out — and in the end the people, the 
consumers, will find out — is that the 
burden of prices paid by them at their 
houses, in their families, for consump- 
tion have little relation to the system, 
which some of us mean to maintain, of 
Protection to the manxifacturer. The 
Immediate result of the Protective 
theory as applied to legislation is the 
Protection to the manufacturer in com- 
petition with foreign manufacturers. 
There is no schedule that shows this 
condition in so marked a degree, I 
think, as the glass schedule. Under It 
we manufacture by American labor, as 
American products, all the articles fur- 
nished to the people, which is illus- 
trated by what the Senator from West 
Virginia has shown here. 

Tariff Has Liiile to Do Wiifi Prices Paid 
by Consumers. 

When Congress has done that and 
has reared in different parts of the 
country this manufacture and sus- 
tained it against foreign competition 
it has very little to do, and this Con- 
gress is finding out — I know that I am 
— as never before, that the prices which 
are paid by the consumer at his door, 
at his home, have very little to do 
with the rates that we establish. I do 
not know, and I can not by any process 
of reasoning of which I am capable 
reach that. 

The Senator has said that Congress 
ought in some way to deal with this 
question of the amazing advance of 
prices, not with the manufacturer 
whom we sustain, but the middlemen, 



the jobber, the retailer. Does the Sen- 
ator believe that Congress can take 
that matter in charge and can pre- 
scribe rates at which articles shall be 
sold in the wholesale market by the 
jobber, and in the retail market by the 
retailer? Where is the remedy that 
the Senator would suggest? It is one 
of the points of enlightenment that is 
coming from this Congress that people 
will understand that, while the great 
system of Protection will build up 
these manufactures and Protect us 
from inundation by foreign labor, it 
has very little to do with the prices 
that are paid by the consumer at his 
fireside. 



Enormous Disproportion Between 
Cost and Selling Price of Pottery. 

From the Congressional Record of May ii, 
1909. 

FRANK P. FLINT, of California. Mr. 
President, I am very glad the Senator 
from Nevada [Mr. Newlands] recog- 
nizes the truth of the claim of the Re- 
publicans that the rate of duty paid 
under this Tariff bill is not a material 
factor in the cost to the consumer of 
these articles. I desire to call his at- 
tention to one or two illustrations. I 
have a great many of them, and this is 
a very good time to put in one or two. 

I call his attention to the cost of a 
100-piece dinner set of Haviland & 
Co.'s make. It was invoiced to their 
New York house at $5.77; packing 
charges, 4G cents; customs-house ad- 
vance to make value, 58 cents; total 
?6.81. The duty at 60 per cent is $4.08, 
making a total cost of $10.89. That 
set of Haviland china is selling In the 
city of Washington for $36. There Is 
a profit of about $26 on those articles. 

I call the attention of Senators to 
these articles to ascertain whether they 
think that a duty of $4.08 on these ar- 
ticles is a factor in the price that is 
charged the consumer. There Is $25 
profit difference In the price of that 
article over the price or cost to land 
in this country. 

I call the attention of Senators to a 
number of other small articles. I take 
Japanese china ware. Blueprint cups 
and saucers pay a duty on a valuation 
of 3 3-4 cents per pair. Including pack- 
ing cliarges, paying a duty of 60 per 
cent or 2 1-4 cents per pair. These 



FLINT. FLETCHER. 



187 



goods sell In Washington at 35 cents a 
pair, or almost 1,000 per cent over the 
value at which they paj^ duty. The 
consumer pays 2 1-4 cents duty on a 
35-cent purchase, or 6 3-7 per cent. 

Dutiable Price, 3 3-4 Cents; Selling 
Price, 35 Cents. 

The same proportion holds good on 
the following items: Plates, dutiable 
price, 3 3-4 cents; retail price, 35 cents 
each. Egg cups, dutiable price, 1 2-3 
cents, sell for 15 cents each. A tea 
set, composed of teapot, sugar, cream, 
and six cups and saucers, cost 41 cents, 
with duty paid, and is selling in the 
stores in Washington for $3.50. An 
article costing 41 cents is selling at re- 
tail for $3.50, and these are the prices 
charged by the large department stores 
throughout the country. When you 
come to small places in Iowa, Kansas, 
Nebraska, and the Dakotas, the prices 
are from 20 to 30 per cent in addition 
to that. 

Mr. HALE. And 50 per cent. 

Mr. FLINT. And 50 per cent, as the 
Senator from Maine says. 

I say, and I repeat, there is not an 
article in this china schedule where 
the duty is a factor in fixing the sell- 
ing price to the consumer. If the Sen- 
ator from Nevada, as suggested by the 
Senator from Maine, can find some way 
by which we can control the selling 
price of these articles after they leave 
the manufacturer, then there may be 
some solution of the problem; but we 
find the manufacturer making but a 
fair and honest profit under the Pro- 
tective Tariff system, and yet the con- 
sumer is complaining Of excessive 
charges, not by reason of the profit 
made by the manufacturer, but by 
reason of the excessive prices charged 
by the jobbing houses and the retail 
stores. 

Razors Cost $3.95 per Dozen; Retail for 
$2 Apiece. 

For instance, take the manufacture 
of razors. I have an invoice in my 
office now where the manufacturer 
charges $3.95 a dozen for razors. The 
jobber in St. Louis secures a 2 per cent 
discount for cash in ten days upon that 
article. He jobs the article that costs 
him $3.95, with 2 per cent discount in 
ten days, for $9 a dozen. That is the 
transaction between the ;)obber and the 



retailer. The retailer sells every one 
of those razors for $2 apiece. In other 
words, the manufacturer In Connecti- 
cut sells one dozen of those razors for 
$3.95, less 2 per cent for cash in ten 
days^ and the consumer pays $2 apiece 
for them, or $24 a dozen. 

Again, there is a great deal said in 
this country in relation to gloves. I 
can walk down here to any store in 
Washington and go in and ask the re- 
tail price of a pair of gloves, and 
for a glove that costs $7.40 a dozen the 
ladies of this country are paying $2 a 
pair. 

So, Mr. President, it does not apply 
only to the china schedule or the glass 
schedule. The countrj^ it seems to me, 
ought to be made to understand that 
this is not due to the manufacturer. 



Causes of Disparity in Prices. 

From the Congressional Record of May ii, 
J909. 

D. UPSHAW FLETCHER, of Flor- 
ida. I desire to ask the Senator from 
West Virginia and also the Senator 
from Utah whether the great disparity 
in prices between the manufacturer's 
price and the retail merchant's price 
to the consumer is not due in a large 
measure to two causes; first, that the 
manufacturer will not sell the manu- 
factured article to the jobber until the 
jobber agrees with the manufacturer 
that he will not sell it under a given 
price to the retailer; and, second, that 
the retailer must agree with the job- 
ber, before the jobber will let him 
have the goods, that he shall demand a 
certain price from the consumer. Is 
not that the situation? 

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir; not at all. I 
will say to the Senator I have been 
forty years in the manufacture of 
glass, and I never in my life knew of 
any such contract or agreement — abso- 
lutely none. 

Mr. FLINT. Mr. President, I am not 
prepared to say that there is any com- 
bination among the retailers of this 
country, but I am prepared to say that, 
in my opinion, the retail merchants of 
this country make a greater percent- 
age of profit on their investment than 
is made in any other line of business 
in the country. It appears to me, 
when an article costs 41 cents to man- 
ufacture, and the retailer charg'es $3.60 



188 



FLETCHER. FLINT. McLAURIN. 



for that article, there is something 
wrong-; and it is not the Protective 
Tariff system. 

As I have said, there are a number 
of articles to which I have called the 
attention of the Senate as to which 
the duty is not a factor in the price of 
the article. It is either the expensive 
way of conducting the store, the 
enormous sums spent for newspaper 
advertisements, the high salaries paid 
to the clerks and managers of the 
business, or whatever it may be; but, 
nevertheless, the more excessive prices 
charged to the consumer are not based 
on the price of the articles on leaving 
the factories. 

The cost is added after that point. 
If we had in this country absolutely 
Free-Trade on articles like Haviland 
china, the price would not be material- 
ly reduced, in my opinion, but it would 
be just as it is to-day, charged with 
$25 profit on a set where the article 
costs about $11 a set. 

If the Senator believes there is a 
combination of the retail stores 
throughout the country 

Mr. McLAURIN. I have denied that. 

Mr. FLINT. I am not prepared to 
say whether or not it is true; but the 
Senator can find out whether it is so 
by going to any store in his own State 
and buying an article such as glass- 
ware, crockery ware, gloves, or cut- 
lery. If he will bring that article to 
me, I will show there is upon it a 
profit of from 70 to 100 per cent be- 
tween the cost at the port of New 
York and the price at which it is sold 
to the consumer. 



Suit of Clothes Sells for $75; Ma- 
terials Cost $12.89. 

From the Congressional Record of May II, 
190Q. 
FRANK P. FLINT, of California. Mr. 
President, the Senator from Mississippi 
[Mr. McLaurin] a moment ago called 
attention to clothing. I have an illus- 
tration as to clothing, to which T 
thought I would rail his attention, 
which shows, as I contend, that even 
with woolen goods the duty Is not a 
factor in increasing the price to the 
consumer. I understand that the cost 
of the cloth, bindings, and finishings 
of all kinds of a $10 suit is about 



$2.25. Everything else In connection 
Avith it is labor. I will give as an illus- 
tration the very highest class of goods. 
I am told by the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Smoot], who is an expert on 
woolens and the woolen schedule, that 
there is probably not a Senator In this 
room who wears a piece of goods that 
has cost as much as this. I want to 
call the Senator's attention to what 
the cost of the very highest class Eng- 
lish goods would amount to. A full 
suit takes about ZVz yards. At a cost 
of $2 a yard for the cloth, that would 
be about $7.50. I'he duty on that cloth 
would be $5.39. The total cost would 
be $12.89. I am advised that there is 
rot a tailor in the city of "Washing- 
ton of high class who makes a suit to 
order of the character of goods re- 
ferred to in this illustration 

Mr. McLAURIN. The Senator must 
have understood that I was not speak- 
ing about a suit made to order, because 
then every suit would fit. I was talk- 
ing about "hand-me-downs." 

Mr. FLINT. I will refer to "hand- 
me-downs," too, if the Senator will 
permit me to finish the illustration. 

Mr. McLAURIN. Every suit would 
fit the man, so that there would have 
been no hard stock. The Senator can 
not illustrate my proposition by refer- 
ring to the people who wear tailor- 
made suits. 

Mr. FLINT. I realize that the Sena- 
tor from Mississippi and myself do not 
indulge in tailor-made suits. The ma- 
terials in a high-priced tailor-made 
suit that costs $12.89 to them would 
sell for $50 to $75 a suit. This same 
class of goods in the "hand-me-downs" 
to which the Senator refers costs from 
$30 to $40. Is the $5.39 duty that is 
charged on that piece of cloth to Pro- 
tect the American manufacturer a fac- 
tor in the $30 or $35 that is paid to 
the clothing merchant for that suit of 
clothes, made from the very highest 
class of goods that is sold on the mar- 
ket? 

Mr. McLAURIN. Will the Senator 
answer this question: How much is 
the Tariff on the ready-made clothing 
when it is brought in here ready- 
made? That is the way to get at that: 
not what the cloth costs, but how much 
Is the price of the goods when they 
come in or the price of the goods when 
they are sent to the retail merchant. 



FLINT. SMOOT. LODGE. 



J«9 



Mr. FLINT. The cost of the class of 
goods to which I refer Is $12.89. 

Mr. McLAURIN. That is, sold by 
the manufacturer? 

Mr. FLINT. That Is the cost of the 
cloth landed in this country. 

Mr. McLAURIN. How much is the 
Tariff on it? 

Mr. FLINT. The Tariff duty Is $5.39 
and the goods cost $7.50. It is the 
very highest class of goods put upon 
the market. 



When American Production Stops, 
Foreigners Put Up the Price. 

From the Congressional Record of May ii, 
1909. 
REED SMOOT, of Utah. I was go- 
ing to refer to the question of why we 
want a duty if things are so very 
cheap here, as suggested by the Sen- 
ator from South Carolina [Mr. Till- 
man]. Let me give one particular case 
that I know of; and I know of many 
such cases. Take oxalic acid. It has 
been manufactured in Germany for 
years and years. It was formerly sold 
to the American consumer here, at 9 
cents a pound. A few years ago some 
gentlemen thought that they could 
manufacture oxalic acid in this coun- 
try and sell it for at least 9 cents a 
pound. It was free of duty at that 
time. A manufactory was established. 
They began the manufacture of oxalic 
acid, but just so soon as the American 
manufacturer placed oxalic acid on the 
market the Germans cut the price to 8 
cents. The Americans still manufac- 
tured it; so the Germans cut the price 
to 7 cents, and then the manufacturers 
here commenced to struggle, and did 
not know how long they could last. 
The Germans then cut the price to 6 
cents, and the manufactories of oxalic 
acid in this country were closed. Just 
as soon as they closed up the American 
manufactories and had the American 
market, the Germans advanced the 
price to 8 cents and to 8i^ cents; and 
when the Americans again started to 
manufacture oxalic acid, the Germans 
ran the price down to 5 3-4 cents a 
pound until they closed them up. That 
is why In this bill we propose a duty 
on oxalic acid to Protect the American 
manufacturer from the German manu- 
facturer. I can see now from past ex- 
perience in the manufacture of thla 



one article that if a sufficient duty is 
not placed upon that article the Ger- 
mans will produce it and charge the 
American people just as much as the 
American manufacturer could make it 
for and sell it in this country. That 
Is only one case; but I can point to 
plenty, if you want them, right now. 



Under Protective Tariff an Article 
Has Decreased in Price from 
$47.00 to 72 Cents a Pound. 

From the Congressional Record of May 11, 
1909. 

HENRY CABOT LODGE, of Massa- 
chusetts. I merely wish to call atten- 
tion to an example as to where the 
duty is always added to the cost of the 
article. One example is as good as a 
dozen. This happens to be a clear one. 

The article saccharine, which Is a 
coal-tar product, cost, in 1895, $47.06 
a pound. Owing to improved methods 
of manufacture and discoveries, it fell 
In 1896 to $6.02 a pound, in 1897 to 
$5.05, in 1898, after the Dingley rate 
was imposed, to $3.72. Up to the time 
of the Dingley Tariff the duty was 25 
per cent ad valorem. Under the Ding- 
ley Tariff a specific duty of $1.50 a 
pound and 10 per cent ad valorem were 
put upon it. The price then was $3.72; 
then $3.83 In 1898. 

Mr. McLAURIN. What commodity Is 
that? 

Mr. LODGE. Saccharine. It has 
fallen steadily from that time until to- 
day It Is selling at 72 cents a pound. 
The specific duty alone is $1.50; It has 
not been changed; but the article has 
gone steadily down until it Is now 
■selling at 72 cents a pound. As I have 
said, the specific duty alone Is $1.50, 
and where is it added? 

Mr. McLAURIN. What is the neces- 
sity of a specific duty of $1.50 a pound 
if it is selling for 72 cents a pound? 

When You ^Extinguish an Industry You 
Reduce World Competition. 

Mr. LODGE. We have reduced It, of 
course. 

I merely want to call the Senator's 
attention to the fact that under the 
Protective Tariff that article has de- 
creased steadily In price, and It Is now 
72 cents a pound. When the duty waa 
put on, it was $5.05 a pound, Jt has 



190 



LODGE. SMITH. CUMMINS. 



fallen to 72 cents a pound under the 
operation of the duty and the develop- 
ment of home competition. If you de- 
velop an industry In this country, you 
add to the world's competition. If 
you extinguish an industry in this 
country, the world's competition is just 
so much less. 

Domestic competition has reduced 
that article of saccharine from $5.05 a 
pound to 72 cents per pound. Of 
course the duty, being specific and ad 
valorem, has increased enormously, 
owing to the reduction of price. But 
the fact remains that the duty has not 
only not been added, but that we are 
getting for 72 cents what we paid $5.05 
a pound for when the duty was put on. 

Mr. McLAUKIN. The argument of 
the Senator from Massachusetts has 
the fallacy of all Protective arguments, 
and that is that it, proceeds upon the 
idea of post hoc, propter hoc, a logic 
that is not worth anj^thing in the 
world. 

Mr. LODGE. That is all right, but it 
does not get rid of the facts. 

Mr. McLAURIN. The facts have 
nothing to do in a thousand instances. 
The facts are that whenever you have 
competition you have a low price for 
an article. 

Mr. LODGE. But the price was 
higher under the low duty than under 
the high duty. Where does the con- 
sumer suffer? 

Mr. McLAURIN. If that be true, then 
there is no necessity for the high duty, 
unless the Senator from Massachusetts 
wants to break down all the industries, 
because their idea is to put up a high 
Tariff in order to Protect the industry. 
Now, if a lower 

The Duty Is Needed to Develop the In- 
dustry. 

Mr. LODGE. The duty Is needed to 
develop the industry. 

Mr. McLAURIN. But if a lower duty 
w^ill develop it better than a higher 
duty 

Mr. LODGE. It has developed It. 
The result Is that Instead of the con- 
sumer paying $5 to the foreigner he 
now pays 72 cents. What difference 
does the duty make? You can make It 
anything you want. The Importer can 
not pay $1.50 specific duty per pound 
when It costs only 72 centg, 



Content with a Tariff That Has 
Brought Prosperity to the Amer- 
ican People. 

From the Congressional Record of May ll, 
1909- 

WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Michi- 
gan. The Senator from Iowa saj-^s the 
difference between us is that I am ul- 
traradical in my position and he is 
willing to be «onvinced. I desire to 
say to the Senator from lOAva — and I 
say it in the kindliest spirit, and I say 
it as the result of my observations 
during this debate — that the difference 
between the Senator from Iowa as a 
Protectionist and myself is this: The 
Senator from Iowa feels that he is 
bound to redeem his promises to lower 
the Tariff and I do not feel bound by 
the same token. That Is the differ- 
ence. I am quite content with the 
Tariff that has brought such prosperity 
to the American people. 

I voted for the Dingley law and I 
have never made an apology for it 
anywhere and I never will. It is not 
perfect, but the fruits are so bountiful 
that even the Senator from Iowa has 
picked them with liberality, and I re- 
fuse to admit that our party principle 
should be sacrificed for the purpose of 
preventing a possible monopoly of this 
product in the years to come. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President. I am 
very glad I have give« the Senator 
from Michigan an opportunity to reeite 
the differences between himself and 
myself. I am not conscious, however, 
of having given him any cause to be- 
come quite so earnest In his denuncia- 
tion of my position. 

Mr. SMITH. The Senator from Iowa 
wants to reduce the Tariff on window 
glass, not because the exactions are 
too great under the present Tariff, not 
because there is no competition In it, 
not because wages a^e not what they 
ought to be, not because the price of 
glass is too high, but to meet a pos- 
sible combination some time In the 
glass business. He wants to throw the 
markets of Europe and the market of 
our own country a little closer to- 
gether. I do not want to do It. I 
want to keep them apart. 

Keep the Tariff Where It Is in Order to 
Insure Competition. 
J think the very point tlie Senator 



SMITH. CUMMINS. PILES. 



l9l 



seeks to obtain is one that is most cal- 
culated to drive out competition among 
the glass makers of America. If he 
reduces the Tariff, he will frighten the 
independent investor and operators, 
and he will drive them Into a com- 
bination to meet conditions In Europe 
that are most unfavorable. There- 
fore, I would keep the Tariff where 
it is for the purpose of keeping- com- 
petition where it is, and the Senator 
from Iowa admits that competition is 
very fair and very helpful. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Has such a duty 
prevented combinations in other fields? 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. No; I 
think it has not; neither has Free- 
Trade. But the fact that it has pre- 
vented monopoly in this field is the 
thing we are dealing with now, and 
the thing we ought to deal with in 
the light of the Information we have 
on this particular subject. When we 
reach some other schedule the Sen- 
ator from Iowa may be able to point 
out a way to meet it. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Does the Senator 
from Michigan believe that this spe- 
cific duty has brought about the com- 
petition which now exists, and would 
not a duty of one-eighth of a cent 
higher or an eighth of a cent lower 
have done it? 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I believe It 
is this present duty which has created 
the competition and stimulated the in- 
dustry. 



Should We Exclude Oriental Work- 
ers and Receive the Product of 
Oriental Cheap Labor? 

From the Congressional Record of May ii, 
1909. 
SAMUEL H. PILES, of Washing- 
ton. The lumber schedule of the 
pending bill is as important to the 
State of Washington as any sched- 
ule therein contained can possibly 
be to the greatest manufacturing 
State in the Union, because it vi- 
tally affects our principal industry. 
If lumber is placed on the free list or 
the duty thereon is reduced, as pro- 
posed by this bill, the growth and 
prosperity of Washington will be re- 
tarded to such an extent that I am un- 
willing to let the subject pass without 
calling the attention of the Senate to 
the injustice that threatens my State. 



If the proposed reduction would re- 
sult in material benefit to the people 
c^f the country, an entirely different 
question would be presented; but. In- 
stead of being beneficial, the reduction 
would be injurious, not alone to those 
engaged in the business, but to the 
people of the United States as a whole. 
A great deal has been said by the 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Mc- 
Cumber] and the Senator from Minne- 
sota [Mr. Nelson] in respect to the 
dift"erence In the cost of producing this 
m.aterial in Washington and In British 
Columbia. I think that I can convince 
any fair-minded man that it Is impos- 
sible for the lumbermen in Washington 
to compete with the British Columbia 
manufacturers on even terms. There 
are two reasons for this — the lower 
cost of stumpage across the line in 
Canada, and the employment there of 
the cheapest grade of Asiatic laborers. 
Of the lower cost of stumpage I shall 
speak later. As to the oriental labor, 
which free lumber advocates would 
bring Into direct competition with our 
American workingmen, permit me to 
call attention to the policy of this 
Government In preventing the Orien- 
tals from coming here to vitiate the 
home labor market and inject their 
peculiar racial characteristics Into our 
body social. 

If that policy be sound — and I as- 
sume that it is conceded to be sound — 
then upon what economic theory or 
according to what doctrine of sociolo- 
gy would Senators justify the bringing 
here of the essence of that cheap ori- 
ental labor — the concrete product of 
their handiwork, to be thrown into 
competition with the output of our 
own citizens? 

I desire to emphasize this point, to 
impress it upon the comprehension of 
Senators, to advance it as essential in 
this discussion. The cardinal princi- 
ple of the Republican doctrine of Pro- 
tection has been to 

Conserve the /nferests of the Man Who 
Works with His Hands 

as well as with his head — the laboring 
man. And I ask again, by what 
processes of logic shall you justify the 
bringing into this country of the labor 
product of a class of people whom our 
Government in its wisdom has seen fit 
to exclude, the while we say to the In- 



192 



PILES. 



dividuals in that class: "You your- 
self may not come. You may come in 
the form of your finished effort; you 
may compete with our people; you 
may lower the wage of our working- 
man; you may compel our laborers to 
accept less than that which our con- 
cept of civilization accords to the pro- 
ducers of our national wealth, but you 
yourself may not come." 

We shall not lightly engage in legis- 
lative changes to cut off any portion 
of this magnificent share of labor in 
this great industry without reducing 
by that much the sum total of our 
American laboring man's ability to up- 
hold our social system and maintain 
himself as our self-respecting workers 
should be maintained. 

Imagine a propagandist standing 
here with a proposal to legislate so 
that the farmers of the prairie States 
should be materially reduced in their 
annual revenues, so that they would be 
compelled to accept less that foreign 
farmers might receive more, and tell 
me how welcome a hearing he would 
have from the Senators who here have 
demanded reduction in the duty on 
lumber. 

Upon what theory of right does the 
Senator contend that the million peo- 
ple in the State of Washington, for 
instance, should stand idly by and 
watch the forests grow, not for their 
benefit, but for the benefit of future 
generations, while they suffer them- 
selves? 

Why should 110,000 men be thrown 
out of employment, to w^alk the streets, 
Instead of being permitted to work? 

Why Should the Commerce and the Busi- 
ness of the People of the Pacific Coast 
be Crippled or Destroyed That Trees 
May Grow for Future Generations? 

How would the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. McCumber] feel if I 
should say to him that the agricultural 
lands of his State are not yielding 
quite as much per acre in wheat as 
they formerly yielded; that his lands 
should remain idle for a number of 
years so that they might have rest and 
produce more wheat per acre later on, 
and In the meantime we should remove 
the Tariff on wheat, oats, and barley, 
and let Canada dispose of her cereals 
on the American markets now tribu- 



tary to Minnesota and North and 
South Dakota? What would the Sen- 
ator say to that? Would he say that 
I should vote for a law that would 
force such a proposition upon the 
farmers of North Dakota while Canada 
pours her wheat and oats into our 
markets? Certainly not. But he as- 
serts that the people of the State of 
Washington should let their forests 
stand, when we have $200,000,000 in- 
vested in our mills, and that those 
mills should remain idle or that their 
output should be reduced, while Can- 
ada comes into this country and 
usurps our markets. 

Would Strike Also at Our Ships and 
Sailors. 

There are, Mr. President, over 500 
American vessels on the Pacific coast 
prepared to carry lumber. Do the ad- 
vocates of free lumber realize that 
they are urging a policy which strikes 
not only at the laboring masses in the 
mills and forests, but also at our ships 
and sailors on the sea? 

We pay our American seamen $40 
per month, and board, in the coastwise 
trade, which amounts to about $55 per 
month. Chinese seamen are paid from 
$8 to $10 per month and board them- 
selves. Japanese get about the same. 
Seamen on British craft get from $15 
to $18 per month. It is well to know 
that it costs 33 1-3 per cent more to 
construct a ship here than in foreign 
countries. 

Water competition is not serious 
now, because the Tariff of $2 per 
thousand Protects us very largely in 
the California market, but when tlie 
canal shall be completed, it will be a 
serious problem for us to solve. We 
hope, upon the completion of the ca- 
nal, to place our lumber in the mar- 
kets of the Atlantic seaboard at a 
much less rate than that paid for the 
rail haul across the mountains, and 
thereby to reduce the cost to the con- 
sumer. All hope in that respect would 
be dispelled with lumber on the free 
list or the duty reduced to $1 per 
thousand. 

Orientals Would Do the Work. 

Instead of employing our 500 ships 
and our 11,000 sailors In carrying 
American products to American mar- 
kets through an American canal, Orl- 



PILES. SMOOT. ELKINS. 



198 



entals will manufacture a foreign 
product, Orientals will man foreign 
ships, and those ships will carry this 
foreign product to our markets, to the 
detriment of our labor, our mills, and 
our merchant marine. 

We have long known the necessity 
of strengthening our merchant marine. 
Members of Congress have made ef- 
forts to encourage it, but failed. It 
has been left to take care of itself in 
competition with subsidized ships. It 
has made some progress, but it is now 
proposed not only to arrest that prog- 
ress, but to strike it a blow, in an in- 
direct way, from which it will take it 
many years to recover. This question 
is too serious to be passed over 
lightly. It is worthy of profound con- 
sideration. 

I do not believe that the consumer 
will be benefited one penny if lumber 
is placed on the free list. I am of the 
opinion that the Canadian manufac- 
turer and the wholesaler, and possibly 
the retailer, will absorb the amount of 
duty removed, and it is not improbable 
that the Canadian government would 
itself after a while absorb a part of 
the duty. Through this process of ab- 
sorption the price of our lumber will 
be lowered at our mills and the wages 
of our working people cut, while the 
foreign product dominates our market. 

Canadian manufacturers can easily 
drive us out of our domestic markets 
for low-grade lumber by reducing the 
price to the wholesale dealer in this 
country, and yet maintain the present 
price to the consumer. 

British Columbia Competition. 

Mr. President, the facts in this case 
call for relief. I have shown that 
British Columbia can manufacture both 
lumber and shingles cheaper than we 
can. She has the advantage in the 
price of labor, in the price of stump- 
age, in the water freight rate. It must 
be plain to all that if the duty be 
removed our California market is 
doomed. 

We have long tried to promote our 
merchant marine. There are over 500 
American vessels on the Pacific Ocean, 
employing 11,000 men, prepared to 
transport lumber. Remove the duty 
from lumber and what do you do by 
way of encouragement to them? If 
upon the completion of the Panama 



Canal you do not put them off the sea, 
and the seamen off the ships, you 
greatly cripple their business. This 
question is entitled to serious consid- 
eration. It involves a great deal more 
than a mere contest between stumpage 
owners, as the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Burkett] seems to think. It In- 
volves the welfare of the 800,000 men 
employed in the lumber and shingle in- 
dustries of the United States, as well 
as that of their wives and children. It 
involves our commerce on the sea. It 
touches the homes of half a million 
people in the State which I have the 
honor in part to represent. 

In this view do you wonder that I 
press the subject upon the attention 
of the Senate? 



Six Hundred Per Ceni Profit in 
Glass. 

From the Congressional Record of May 12, 
1909. 
REED SMOOT, of Utah. Right here 
in relation to the profit, I wish to say 
that I was rather interested in the 
matter of glass that was spoken of 
here last night. So I wired to New 
York and had an appraiser go to sev- 
eral of the stores in New Tork to find 
out what a 12 by 14 pane of glass, such 
as we were discussing yesterday, could 
be purchased for at retail in New 
York. The cost of that glass a pane, 
with the duty added and a large al- 
lowance for breakage, is 4 cents. The 
appraiser went to a picture-framing 
establishment and asked at what price 
he could buy a pane of 12 by 14 glass 
and he was told 15 cents. He went to 
one of the largest department stores in 
New York and asked what the same 
Identical pane of glass could be 
bought for there. Mind you, it cost 4 
cents. The price asked for It in the 
department store was 25 cents per 
pane of glass. That is not 33 1-3 per 
cent, but 600 per cent. 



If the Producer Is Not Prosperous, 
What Becomes of the Consumer 
Who Loses His Employment? 

From the Congressional Record of May 12, 
1909. 
STEPHEN B. ELKINS, of West Vir- 
ginia. Mr. President, we are all con- 



194 



ELKINS. HALE. 



sumers, and manj' of us producers as 
well. I do not want to be ruled out of 
the class of consumers because I am a 
producer. If it were not for the man- 
ufacturers and the producers and their 
businesses, there are a lot of consum- 
ers who would not have employment 
or the means to purchase what they 
consume. We must make that distinc- 
tion. If the manufacturer or producer 
is not prosperous or gives up business, 
what becomes of the vast army of 
consumers who are employed by pro- 
ducers or indirectly get a livelihood 
out of the producer's business? The 
consumers, if they are aggrieved, 
should fight rather the middleman than 
the manufacturer. The manufacturers 
and producers contribute to the busi- 
ness of the country, to its glory and 
its progress, and there is no just com- 
plaint that the manufacturer does not 
generally sell cheaply enough in the 
first instance. I admit prices may at 
times be too high. It is the middlemen 
generally who get the exorbitant 
profits, and if there is any legislation 
to prevent extortion complained of by 
consumers, let some one aggrieved 
make the move; but let us not com- 
plain on account of an abuse against 
persons not guilty, but rather the mid- 
dleman. 



The Raid That Is Made by the For- 
eign Competitor. 

From the Congressional Record of May I2, 
1909. 

EUGENE HALE, of Maine. Mr. 
President, there is no mystery about 
the application of the doctrine and 
theory of Protection as applied in the 
glass schedule. It is better illustrated 
in the glass schedule perhaps than in 
any other. The policy of Protection, 
as applied to the manufacturer in this 
country, and as illustrated in this 
schedule, is to save him on the one 
side from foreign competition. The 
price to the consumer is another ques- 
tion, with which I will deal later. But 
the American manufacturer of this 
great product, so largely used by the 
people, is up against the raid that is 
made by the foreign competitor pro- 
ducing the same article. 

There never has been a time — and it 
is fortunate in considering all the sides 
of this question that there never has 



been a time — when there has been 
such a raid of the foreign manufac- 
turer and producer in his insatiate and 
natural desire to get at the great 
American market as there is to-day. 
It is not simply Oriental, it is not 
simply Japan, although that Is a very 
great feature. But there has never 
been a time when, on the part of the 
German Empire, which is not only mil- 
itary and dominant in politics, but in 
business and in trade and industry, 
there was such a determination and 
predetermination to secure the im- 
mense American market as to-day. 

The man is blind, Mr. President, who 
does not see that. Almost every man- 
ufacturer in this country is met by" 
this determined invasion of our indus- 
tries by the competing industries of 
Germany to obtain our market. That 
is one side of the question. 

That is the one side. That Is not 
the side of the consumer. That Is an- 
other side, entirely distinct from that; 
and 

The Policy of tfie Republican Party, the 
Policy of Protection, 

is to impose such duties as will be a 
complete and fair discrimination in 
favor of our labor in manufactures as 
against German and oriental labor; and 
the duties that we impose are meant 
for the Protection of the manufacturer 
in the great products that go to the 
people. 

We have not yet come to deal with 
the consumer. That is another side. 
We are dealing now with the building 
up of manufacturing industries as 
against foreign competition. Every 
imposition in the way of duty is to 
Protect our manufacturers. There 
never has been such a demonstration 
of the wisdom and beneficence of the 
Protective theory against foreign com- 
petition as is disclosed in the glass 
schedule. 

I said yesterday that the wit of man 
can not devise a wiser system of Pro- 
tection — not yet considering the con- 
sumer — against foreign competition 
than was disclosed yesterday by the 
junior Senator from West Virginia 
[Mr. Scott] when he brought forth the 
wares — glass — the different manufac- 
tures that under Republican Protec- 
tion were manufactured in the estab- 
lishments Protected by the Republican 



HALE. 



195 



policy of Protection. It was a revela- 
tion to me — the cheapness — and yet I 
knew as a Protectionist that that is 
what Protection does — that it builds up 
these great hives of human industry 
throughout our whole country and 
produces materials for the people at a 
cheaper rate than could in any other 
way be produced. 

The presentation by the Senator 
from West Virginia of the glass prod- 
ucts showed the result that under our 
system of Protection against the for- 
eign manufacturer our manufacturers 
could produce for the people at a rate 
at which the article never could be 
sent to our markets if we gave way 
to the foreigner. 

Then we meet the other side, and 
the Senator showed the result of Pro- 
tection, how one article of general use 
among the people was furnished at 90 
cents per dozen. 

The Patent Democratic Fallacy and Ab- 
surdity. 

Under our system of Protection 
against the foreign manufacturer that 
single article could be presented and 
distributed and sold to the American 
people at 90 cents a dozen, and then 
we come to the other side, and there is 
the Democratic fallacy, thene is the 
patent fallacy and absurdity, that 
whatever rate is put on to Protect our 
manufacturers from this foreign in- 
vasion is paid by the consumer, 

I am very glad, Mr. President, that I 
had some hand in bringing out this, I 
will not say fresh, I will not say new, 
but this important and essential con- 
tribution to the whole controversy, and 
that is that the rate which enables the 
producer, Protected by the Tariff 
through the Republican party, to open 
his establishment and present his 
wares to the American people has no 
relation to the price that the con- 
sumer pays at his own door. The 
Democratic proposition is that what- 
ever is added by the Tariff is paid by 
the consumer, and if anything has 
been shown by the discussion to-day 
and if anything is shown by the 
thorough investigation into the whole 
business of the country, it is that the 
rate at which the Protective Tariff en- 
ables the American manufacturer to 
present his wares to the American peo- 
ple has the least possible relation to 



what is paid by the consumer at his 
own door. Ninety cents per dozen is 
the price of a single article of every- 
day production, a pitcher, and yet it is 
paid for by the consumer at his door 
at the rate of 50 to 60 cents for each 
article. And our Democratic friends 
say that that should be charged to 
Protection. 

Tariff Rates Have No Relation to the 
Prices Charged by the Manufacturer. 

I assert — and I assert that this dis- 
cussion will disclose and in the end 
will bring to the mind of the American 
people the fact — that the rates which 
we establish for the Protection of 
these great industries, upon articles 
that are presented to the public, has 
no relation whatever to the prices that 
are charged by the manufacturer. It 
is the middleman, it is the jobber, it 
is the retailer, who puts on the price, 
and the citizen in Florida, the house- 
keeper in Missouri, the family in North 
Carolina, and the consumer in Wiscon- 
sin and Iowa are paying no tribute to 
the Republican policy of Protection, 
that builds up these manufactures, but 
are at the mercy of and are controlled 
by the prices that are charged to them 
by the middleman. 

The prices charged are the prices — I 
had a controversy yesterday with the 
Senator from Nevada — charged by the 
middleman, the jobber, the retailer. I 
do not know that we can interfere 
with that. We have not yet a system 
of government, paternal as it is grow- 
ing to be and reaching out and assum- 
ing functions that were never Im- 
agined by the fathers, that seeks to 
fix the prices which shall be paid by 
the man who ultimately consumes. 

Experiments of that kind have been 
tried in other countries, and have al- 
ways been failures. There is no pos- 
sible way we can do that. But I am 
trying to help awaken the American 
people to the consciousness that the 
large prices they pay at their door are 
in no degree affected by the Protective 
Tariff that we lay in order to build 
up the manufactures of this country. 

Some time, Mr. President, the people 
will realize this. It is a direct counter 
proposition and a direct contradiction 
of the Democratic fallacy that the rate 
imposed by Protection for the benefit 
of American manufactvirers Is all 



196 



HALE. ALDRICH. 



charged to and paid by the consumer. 
A demonstration of how this works 
shows precisely the contrary. 



Tariff on Glass Has Resulted in a 
Reduction of Prices. 

From the Congressional Record of May 12, 
1909. 
NELSON W, ALDRIGH, of Rhode Is- 
land. Mr. President, the wisdom and 
efficacy of the Protective policy is no- 
where better exemplified than in the 
article now under consideration. The 
window-glass schedule has always 
been one of the principal sources of 
attacks on the part of the opponents 
of the Protective policy. For instance, 
in 1890, when this schedule was before 
the Senate, the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Vance], who then rep- 
resented the minority of the Com- 
mittee on Finance, made the follow- 
ing statement: 

Mr. President, if it were possible in 
human ingenuity, to a rectified and en- 
lightened conscience, to select the 
worst feature of this whole Tariff bill, 
I think it would be this one of glass, 
where such a great discrimination is 
made. 

Against the American consumer. 
Senator Vest, also a member of that 
committee, said: 

Mr. President, there is not a single 
provision in this bill which has given 
rise to more complaint amongst the 
poorer classes in the country than the 
one now under consideration. 

Then he went on to make a further 
statement. Both Senators claimed 
that a duty approximating 100 per 
cent ad valorem was imposed upon this 
article, and that the consumers of win- 
dow glass in this country paid the 
duty. 

This was in 1890, nineteen years ago. 
What has resulted since? At that time 
a large part of the glass used in the 
United States was imported. To-da3% 
as the result of the Protective Tariff, 
all of the ordinary window glass used 
in the United States is made in the 
United States. 

American Labor and Industry Have Cap- 
tured the Market. 
American Industry and American la- 
bor have taken from the foreign com- 
petitors the whole American market, 
practically. 



What is the result on prices? The 
result has been a reduction in prices 
in this country, so that there has never 
been a time in the history of the coun- 
try when window glass was sold to the 
consumer as low as it is at this mo- 
ment. 

Now, the question arises, perhaps, in 
the minds of some Senators, If this is 
so, why do they need any duty upon 
window glass? The paragraph now 
under consideration not only includes 
in its terms common window glass 
that is used by all the people of the 
country, but it includes also, by neces- 
sity, all the 10 by 15 glass, which is 
common crown or window glass, im- 
ported into the country, and it includes 
not only the low-priced but the high- 
priced goods. It includes goods, for 
instance, valued at 2 cents a pound and 
goods valued at 4 and 5 cents a pound. 

The Committee on Finance have 
been trying to find some description 
which will enable them to separate 
that class of goods which are dis- 
tinctly different in this one paragraph. 
The courts have finally decided that all 
kinds of crown and cylinder glass are 
included in the provisions of this first 
clause. Some of these are worth 4, 5, 
6, and 7 cents a pound, while common 
window glass, as I said yesterday, is 
worth less than 2 cents a pound. 

The Effect of the Duty Is to Prevent 
Dumping. 

I agree that there ought to be a dif- 
ference in the rates on these two 
classes of goods. I think this must be 
apparent to everybody. But I insist 
further that the present duty of 1 3-8 
cents per pound upon common window 
glass has not raised the price in the 
United States a single mill. I think 
that that is beyond dispute here, and 
that the only effect of the duty, if It 
has had any effect at all, was to pre- 
vent the dumping of the window glass 
of Belgium upon the United States and 
upon the American producers at times 
when there was an excess of produc- 
tion over demand In the foreign coun- 
tries. 

The history of American Industry Is 
full of cases where dutbes have been 
levied and are levied above the 
difference In the cost of produc- 
tion here and abroad. Those du- 
ties have had no deleterious effect 



ALDRICri. OLIVER. CRAWFORD. 



197 



upon the American consumer. The law 
of supply and demand, to which the 
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Gore] 
has just alluded, and free competition 
in the enterprise and industrj-- of the 
American manufacturer have kept the 
prices down to the lowest possible 
level. That Is the contention of the 
Protectionists. 



An Industry with Strong Claims for 
Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of May 12, 
1909. 

GEORGE T. OLIVER, of Pennsyl- 
vania. Mr. President, with the permis- 
sion of the Senator from Nevada, I 
can say that the window-glass fac- 
tories running- in the United States to- 
day are not making anything like a 
fair return on the investment. The 
reason why they are not using all the 
duty that Is placed upon the different 
sizes is that, by reason of the compe- 
tition among themselves, they can not 
get a sufficient price to compensate 
them for the amount that they pay 
out. 

I have some knowledge and some 
little feeling upon this subject, be- 
cause within four j^ears I invested no 
small amount of money in a window- 
glass factory; and I tell you, Mr. Pres- 
ident, it disappeared as rapidly as if T 
had put it on the wrong number at 
Monte Carlo. It did not last two 
years. At the end of the first year 
there was a bad statement submitted 
to the stockholders. They contributed 
more money. At the end of the sec- 
ond year there was not only no pros- 
pect of profit, but there was a heavy 
loss, and no promise for the future. 
The creditors now have that factory, 
and it is closed up. The manufac- 
turers of window glass to-day are the 
hewers of wood and the drawers of 
water in the industrial world of Amer- 
ica. They are making no money, and 
they have no prospect of making 
money. 

A Trust Without the Power of Control. 

Some allusion has been made to the 
danger of a trust being formed. As 
the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Cummins] 
said yesterday, there was a combina- 
tion of window-glass manufacturers In 
1900 or 1901. It is in existence to-day. 



At the time It was organized It com- 
prised practically all, or nearly all, of 
the window-glass manufacturers of 
the country. Within three years there 
were in the field enough independents 
to make as much of the product as the 
product of the so-called "trust." While 
that company is in existence to-day, 
while it is going on in business, and 
has the advantage of the sole owner- 
ship of the window-glass machine 
patents, its securities are so low that 
they are not even quoted on any stock 
exchange. I will not say that It Is 
bankrupt, but It Is so hopelessly In- 
volved that no stockholder can sell 
even his preferred stock at 10 cents on 
the dollar. 

I submit, Mr. President, that the 
Senators who attack this paragraph of 
the Tariff bill have chosen the poorest 
of all the great Industries of this 
country to attack. If it does not need 
the Protection it has now just at this 
time, the manufacturers have hope 
that at some time in the future the 
demand for their wares will be such 
as to enable them to charge the con- 
sumers sufficient to give some little 
return on their investment. I hope — 
I beg pardon of the Senator from Ne- 
vada for trespassing upon his time, 
for I had expected to say this much In 
my own time — but I hope that when 
we come to vote on this paragraph we 
will bear in mind that, while all of the 
duty on this product and on other 
products may not be required just 
now, we should not allow the specter 
of a trust or the fear of a combination 
to lead us to so lower the duty that 
just as soon as the manufacturers be- 
gin to have some profits In sight, the 
foreigner will come in with his wares 
and deprive the American manufac- 
turer of almost any profit or any rea- 
sonable business return. 



Difficulties Attending the Task of 
Obtaining Accurate Information. 

From the Congressional Record of May 12. 
1909. 
COE L CRAWFORD, of South Da- 
kota. Does the American owner or 
producer of a certain article of com- 
merce need Protection? If so. what 
rate will not be so high as to be pro- 
hibitive, nor yet so low as to discour- 
age and depress him? How and where 



198 



CRAWFORD. BURROWS. 



and when is the evidence to be pro- 
cured from which to determine all 
these things? Is it to be received ex 
parte and from the beneficiaries only? 
Is it to be collected from voluntary 
witnesses during the hearings of a 
committee of Congress holding all its 
sessions in Washington and covering 
the period of only a few weeks? These 
are really the serious and perplexing 
questions connected with the system of 
raising revenues by customs duties. 

Assuming that the Tariff imposed 
upon articles which can be success- 
fully produced in this country should 
be such an amount as will equal the 
difference in the cost of production at 
home and the cost of production 
abroad, allowing a reasonable profit to 
the American producer, according to the 
rule declared in the Republican na- 
tional platform, it must be admitted 
that a higher rate than this is ex- 
cessive and unjust to the consumer. 

In the very nature of things the dif- 
ficulty is found in procuring the neces- 
sary testimony from disinterested and 
reliable sources upon which to apply 
the rule. I have read much of the 
testimony taken at the hearings of the 
House Committee on "Ways and Means, 
and believe I am justified in saying 
that nearly all the witnesses who gave 
testimony there appeared as special 
pleaders, directly interested in the par- 
ticular schedule about which they de- 
sired to be heard and concerning 
which they testified. 

The impression left on one's mind, 
after reading this testimony, is that It 
is unsatisfactory, highly colored, one- 
sided, and far from convincing. 

Should All Be on the Free List. 

In my humble opinion, a duty upon 
lumber, oil. Iron ore, and coal is 
harmful in its effect and is against 
sound public policy, because these nat- 
ural resources lie at the foundation of 
our industrial life and are as neces- 
sary to its sustenance and support as 
the air we breathe is necessary to sus- 
tain human life. A Tariff upon these 
natural resources can have but ont^ ef- 
fect, and that is to check the use of 
that part of the world's stock lying 
beyond our borders and to hasten the 
exhaustion of the supply we have at 
home. 



From the Foundation of the Govern- 
ment a Protective Duty Has Been 
Laid Upon Iron Ore. 

From the Congressional Record of May i?, 
1909. 

JULIUS CAESAR BURROWS, of 
Michigan. Mr. President, in the course 
of the remarks of the Senator from 
South Dakota [Mr. Crawford] yester- 
day, I gathered the impression that 
the Senator is opposed to the pending 
amendment of the Committee on Fi- 
nance restoring a duty on iron ore. It 
is my purpose at this time to make 
some observations upon the restoration 
of duty on iron ore as proposed by the 
Senate bill. 

Under the existing law, the rate of 
duty on iron ore is 40 cents a ton. 
The House bill removes that duty and 
puts the product on the free list. The 
Senate committee, in its desire to con- 
form to the general purpose of the 
committee to reduce duties wherever it 
can be done without injury to the 
American industry and American la- 
bor, proposed the amendment reported, 
to wit, a duty of 25 cents a ton on 
iron ore. 

A duty on iron ore has always been 
a fruitful source of revenue. From 
the foundation of the Government, un- 
der all parties, revenue or Protective, a 
duty has been imposed upon iron ore. 
I propose to submit at this point a 
table, without reading, asking to have 
it inserted in the Record. 

This table shows that under the 
Tariff of 1789 iron ore bore a duty of 5 
per cent, and there has never been an 
hour from that time until the present 
■when a duty was not levied on iron 
ore for the purpose of securing the 
needed revenue for the support of the 
Government. Even the Wilson law, 
which was intended to . be a decided 
step toward Free-Trade, Imposed a 
duty of 40 cents a ton on Iron ore. 

It appears from this that a duty has 
been levied upon iron ore from the 
foundation of the Government. It Is 
now proposed to take the rash step 
not to reduce the duty, but to remove 
It entirely, and expose this industry of 
our mines and their -workers to the 
unrestrained competition of foreign 
countries. 

But In addition, Mr. President, to the 
loss of revenue there are other con- 



BURROWS. 



199 



siderations of the highest importance. 
This duty imposed on foreign ores has 
resulted in the development of an im- 
portant industry In the United States, 
whlcli I am quite sure the Senate will 
not wholly disregard. 

How the Industry Has Developed Under 
Protection. 

It appears from the official tables 
that this Industry of iron-ore mining 
exists to-day in 29 States and Terri- 
tories of the Union. There have been 
opened and developed 525 mines, pro- 
ducing in 1907, in round numbers, 52,- 
000,000 tons of Iron ore, valued at 
$132,000,000. These industries exist, as 
appears from the table. In Minnesota, 
Michigan, Alabama, New York, Wis- 
consin, Pennsylvania, Montana, New 
Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Ten- 
nessee, Virginia, New Jersey, Georgia, 
Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, North Caro- 
lina, and other States, showing that 
these Industries are established in 29 
States and Territories, and that there 
was a yield of ore of 51,720,619 tons 
last year, valued at $131,996,147. 

The extent and value of this indus- 
try, existing as it does in 29 States 
and Territories, is very important. The 
number of mines opened and in opera- 
tion in 1902 was 525; operators em- 
ployed, 332; the number of officials, 
2,405; their salaries, $2,113,230; the 
wage-earners number nearly 39,000; 
the wages paid amount to $21,531,000; 
miscellaneous expenses, $8,000,000; sup- 
plies and materials, $35,000,000; and 
the value of the gross output more 
than $65,500,000. 

In 1902 the output was over 35,000,- 
000 tons, and in 1907 over 51,000,000. 
Based upon this increased tonnage. It 
Is fair to assume that the wage-earn- 
ers have increased to-day to 56,000 
and their earnings $31,500,000. 

Importations Would Supplant the Domes- 
tic Ore. 

The volume of ore in Cuba is prac- 
tically inexhaustible; and whether it 
Is in the hands of one corporation or 
another, or of an individual does not 
matter in this connection. I show this 
for the purpose of demonstrating that 
to open our ports to the free importa- 
tion of ore means the impairment if 
not destruction of the iron-ore indus- 



try in every State In this Union where 
it exists. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I desire to ask this 
question, if the Senator from Michigan 
will permit: Does he believe that, 
with free Iron ore, taken in connec- 
tion with the cost of production In 
Cuba which he has Indicated, Cuban 
ore could supplant Lake Superior ore 
at Pittsburg? 

Mr. BURROWS. It would lessen 
materially and restrict the market for 
our ore, if it did not entirely close our 
mines. A large body of our citizens is 
engaged in this industry In Michigan. 
All they have on earth is there; they 
are living In their own homes, built 
from the fruits of their own toil. 
Many of the mines are 2,200 feet deep; 
and they mine this ore and bring it to 
the surface, and by their toil day and 
night have accumulated, as I say, all 
they have in this world. Now it Is 
proposed to cripple this Industry, be- 
cause, forsooth, to continue it Is going 
to lessen our natural supply of ore, 
which, as I have already shown, will 
be exhausted in a little over six thou- 
sand years. This is done under the 
pretense of conserving our natural re- 
sources, and sometimes upon the plea 
of free raw material; but the humble 
miner, who, in the caverns of the 
earth, brings forth the ore to the 
mouth of the mine presents to the 
manufacturer not a raw material, but 
his finished product. 

It will be a sad day for this Repub- 
lic and its industries when the Iron 
mines, the mines of lead ore, the mar- 
ble quarries, and all the natural re- 
sources of this country, from which 
we draw the raw material to make our 
manufactured products, shall be closed, 
whenever we find some place on the 
globe where quarrying is cheaper, 
where mining is cheaper, where labor 
is cheaper, and thus cripple our own 
industries and deprive our own people 
of employment while we pay tribute to 
foreigners. The Protective system 
touches not only to the manufactured 
products, but It compasses the raw ma- 
terial in the earth as well, strengthen- 
ing and nerving the arm of labor to 
bring it forth for the uses of man- 
kind. I therefore, Mr. President, insist 
that the amendment proposed by the 
Senate Committee on Finance ought to 
prevail. 



200 



RAYNER. SMITH. OLIVER. NELSON. 



Fears that a Trust Would Be Bene= 
fited. 

From the Congressional Record of May /?, 
1909. 
ISIDOR RAYNER, of Maryland. Mr, 
President, I have not the slightest 
doubt in the world that the United 
States Steel Corporation, if that is its 
corporate name, absolutely controls the 
product, and it is the corporation that 
is contesting- a reduction of the duty. 
I do not think for a moment that the 
Senator from Michigan, however, is 
representing the steel corporation In 
any capacity whatever. I think he is 
representing the industries and the in- 
terests of his own State, and I find no 
fault with him. But I am absolutely 
satisfied in my own mind that the 
United States Steel Corporation Is 
fighting the placing of these ores upon 
the free list, and would like to have 
a much higher duty even than the 
Senate committee proposes to give. 

Speaks for tfie Thousands of Miner* 
Working Underground. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I thank the Senator from Mary- 
land very much for his kindly refer- 
ence to my position, and to bear it out 
I want the Senate to know that not an 
officer, stockholder, member, or other 
person interested in the ownership of 
the steel company has ever written or 
spoken to me about this subject. I 
speak for the thousands of miners now 
working underground, whose little 
homes and daily vocation is bound up 
In this great industry; for the thou- 
sands of wage-earners who make up 
the cities in northern Michigan and 
from whose comfortable, happy homes 
is radiated all that is purest and best 
in American life. These honest, hard- 
working men have met in general con- 
vocation and asked the Representa- 
tives and Senators from Michigan to 
help retain their employment, and as 
a public servant I am proud to obey. 



Protection for Iron Ore a Question 
of Wages. 

From the Congressional Record of May /?, 
J909- 
GEORGE T. OT.TVER. of Pennsyl- 
vania. Now, Mr. President, upon the 
question of labor. The Senator from 



Iowa [Mr. Dolliver], In the phllllplc 
which he delivered a week ago against 
the United States Steel Corporation, 
said that the wages paid in the Lake 
Superior region were very low; he said 
he thought the wages were about a 
dollar and a quarter a day. I think I 
quote the Senator correctly. If I had 
had the figures at hand at that time, I 
would have interrupted the Senator. I 
have since been informed, and I find 
that the minimum rate of wages paid 
in the mines of Minnesota and Michi- 
gan ranges to-day are from $2.44 a day 
to $2.51 a day; that in 1902 they ranged 
from about 12 1^ to 20 per cent less 
than that, but there have been suc- 
cessive advances which have brought 
them up to the present rate. So the 
minimum rate is just about twice the 
amount that was estimated by the Sen- 
ator from Iowa. 

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Burrows], In his address this morning, 
stated that the wages paid In Cuba 
amount to about $1 a day. So the 
American miners have to stand the dif- 
ference between ?1 a day and, say, 
$2.50 a day, and they should be Pro- 
tected to that extent. 



Would Be an Indirect Advantage to 
the State of Minnesota. 

From the Congressional Record of May J.?, 
1909. 
KNUTE NELSON, of Minnesota. I 
believe in fair play. We do not need 
this Protection in Minnesota. It is a 
small matter. It amounts, in respect 
to Cuban ore, to only 20 cents a ton. 
We do not need this Protection for 
our mines on Lake Superior; but it 
may be of some help to the competi- 
tors of the Steel Trust on the Atlantic 
seaboard, and I, for one, am quite 
willing to give them that advantage In 
order that we may have competition. 
That is the way I feel about it. I 
shall not attempt any revolution if 
you make the duty 20 cents a ton; but 
I think. If we want to build up Inde- 
pendent competitors of "the Steel 
Trust, we ought to give them this ad- 



NELSON. GALLINGER. SMITH. 



201 



vantage; and the people of Minnesota 
are perfectly willing to give the inde- 
pendent concerns east of the Alle- 
gheny Mountains this slight benefit and 
advantage. I hope some of the repre- 
sentatives from other parts of the 
country, when it comes to other 
properties, will feel as generous as do 
the people of Minnesota. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I 
understand the Senator from Minne- 
sota to say that this duty would not 
hurt the people of Minnesota anyAvay. 
So this is a gift that may possibly 
benefit the people of Minnesota. 

Mr. NELSON. It will indirectly be 
an advantage to the State of Minne- 
sota. If the Senator is very in- 
quisitive, I will say it would be an in- 
direct advantage to the State of Min- 
nesota to this extent: It is to the in- 
terest of the State of Minnesota, as it 
is to all parts of the country, that the 
great Steel Trust shall have a com- 
petitor in this country. If we can 
stimulate and keep up competitors who 
are independent of the Steel Trust by 
this little gift, why, in God's name, 
not give it to them? 

Protection for All, Not Protection in 
Spots. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Just a word, Mr. 
President. In early days New Hamp- 
shire did some mining of ore; but it 
was long ago abandoned. It was In 
the White Mountain region; and there 
Is a very charming history connected 
with it that I shall not rehearse. 

I have no interest in this question so 
far as my people are concerned, unless 
free iron ore should give a benefit to 
our manufacturers; but I am not here, 
Mr. President, representing the in- 
terest of New Hampshire or New Eng- 
land. 

The Senator from Minnesota says 
"Our iron mines up there do not need 
Protection." Mr. President, I am not 
going to vote for "up there" on any 
schedule in this bill. I am going to 
vote for what I think is for the best 
interests of the people of the United 
States. I am a Protectionist, and, aa 
such, it will give me great pleasure to 
vote to put a duty of 25 cents a ton on 
iron ore. I only regret that the duty 
fixed by the Senate Finance Commit- 
tee is not the duty which is in the 
present law. 



By Throwing Down the Tariff on 
Iron Ore Two Great Interests 
Would Be Strengthened. 

From the Congressional Record of May 15, 
1909. 

WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Mich- 
igan. All of the ore that has been re- 
ceived into this country from Cuba 
has come from Santiago, about 587,000 
tons. The duty on that is very small, 
but in the Province of Cardenas, 
where Mr. Schwab and the Pennsyl- 
vania Steel Company own these ore de- 
posits, they say, in their own sworn 
testimony, that the deposits are great- 
er than on the Mesaba Range, and that 
the quality is better than the iron on 
the Minnesota Range. Suppose we 
open the door and let this ore in with- 
out restriction. Suppose there is now 
taken from the Mesaba Range 26,000,- 
000 tons of ore a year. Suppose you 
throw the bars down and that there is 
received from Cuba 10,000,000 tons of 
ore, the supply necessary for the Beth- 
lehem and the Pennsylvania Steel Com- 
pany's works. What would be the 
duty that this Government ought to 
collect upon this ore ,from Cardenas? 
On the basis of the present amendment 
it would be $2,500,000. On the basis of 
the present Tariff it would be $4,- 
000.000. 

Mr. Schwab says they own that iron 
ore, and that they can get it here 32 
cents a ton cheaper with the duty off 
than they can get it now. He also 
says that they can put the Cardenas 
ore into the Pittsburg market at the 
same price as the Lake Superior ore 
now, with duty added. Then why 
should we put into the hands of Mr. 
Schwab two and one-half million dol- 
lars of duty, at 25 cents a ton on 10,- 
000,000 tons of Cuban ore, when we 
need the revenue to run our Govern- 
ment? Does any Senator here wish 
to make a present to poor Mr. 
Schwab of two and one-half million 
dollars a year? 

Removal of Duty Would Not Break Down 
Monopoly. 

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cul- 
berson] said this afternoon that if he 
believed that the removal of the duty 
would insure competition, he would 
favor its removal, as he wanted to 
break down this monopolj'. Mr. Presi- 



202 



SMITH. GORE. ALDRICH. GALLINGER. 



dent, Mr. Schwab, in his testimony 
before the Committee on Ways and 
Means, said that he was a stockholder 
in the United States Steel Company. 
Every man in this Chamber knows that 
he was once the president of that com- 
pany. 

The testimony shows that he took 
pay for the Carnegie steel plants in 
the bonds and stocks of the United 
States Steel Company, and there is no 
evidence to show that he has disposed 
of them. If Mr. Schwab owns the 
Cardenas mines and the Steel Company 
owns 45 per cent of the Lake Superior 
and Mesaba mines, by throwing down 
the Tariff you join and strengthen 
these two interests. That there is a 
certain community between them there 
can be no doubt; and if the Govern- 
ment is willing to hand over to Mr. 
Schwab the duty that we ought to col- 
lect from him for the benefit of all the 
people of our country, I mistake the 
temper of the Senate. 



Tariff Duties a Hundred Years Ago 
Were More Nearly Prohibitive 
Than Now. . 

From the Congressional Record of May 14, 
1909. 

THOMAS P. GORE, of Oklahoma. I 
merely desire to say to the Senator 
from Mississippi that the first act 
passed, to which the Senator from 
Rhode Island refers, leveled an aver- 
age duty of about IV2 per cent. The 
general rate was 5 per cent. Some 
duties ranged a little higher than that; 
up to 15 per cent. 

Mr. ALDRICH. If the Senator from 
Oklahoma will study economic history 
a little further, he will find that TVs 
per cent under conditions then exist- 
ing was higher than any Tariff that 
has been imposed in this country since. 

Mr. GORE. Many of those duties 
were specific. On shoes, for instance, 
it was IVz cents a pair, nothing like 
so high a rate as is imposed now; and 
if the Senator from Rhode Island is 
willing to return to the example and 
the precepts of the fathers, I have an 
idea he will find a good deal of com- 
pany on this side willing to return to 
their standpoint. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I want to say, in 
further answer to the Senator from 



Oklahoma, that the duties imposed by 
those early acts were more nearly 
prohibitory in their character than 
those of any act passed since; and 
that can be established historically be- 
yond question. 



Flood of Denunciation Poured Out 
against the Finance Committee. 

From the Congressional Record of May 14, 
1909. 

JACOB H. GALLINGER. of New 
Hampshire. Mr. President, during my 
term of service in this body I have 
never witnessed anything like what 
has occtxrred in this debate during the 
past month. The flood of denunciation 
that has been poured out against the 
committee which has had charge of 
this bill, and especially against the 
distinguished chairman of the commit- 
tee, I think is unparalleled in our re- 
cent history. It may serve the pur- 
pose of some Members of this body to 
indulge in that kind of vituperation, 
but I submit it is not serving the in- 
terests of the people of the United 
States, and it is not doing any good 
so far as this body is concerned. 

I have been astounded, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that the Senator from Rhode 
Island has been able so to conduct 
himself as to treat with kindness, 
courtesy, and patience the attacks 
which have been made upon him. He 
has a better temper, a better disposi- 
tion, than some of us have or he would 
have struck back in different fashion 
from what he has. 

The Old Fallacy that Tariff Rates Are 
Added to the Cost to the Consumer. 
But, Mr. President, I wish to occupy 
a few minutes of the time of the Sen- 
ate on another matter. I am not tak- 
ing much time in this debate, but I 
wish to call attention to one thing 
which has been insisted upon here 
over and over again and that has gone 
out to the country without being chal- 
lenged. I recall the circumstance that 
the distinguished senior Senator from 
Georgia [Mr. Bacon] in a very fervid 
address charged that the duties levied 
upon the consumers of the United 
States under this Tariff bill would 
amount to at least two thousand 
million dollars; that is, that the duties 
under this bill would be added to the 



OALLINGER. TILLMAN. 



203 



cost of the articles that the consumers 
of this country had to buy. If I un- 
derstood the paper aright that was 
read at the desk a little while ago and 
ordered to be printed as a Senate doc- 
ument submitted by the honorable Sen- 
ator from Mississippi [Mr. Money], the 
same accusation was made — that the 
duties levied upon these steel products 
were added to the cost of the articles 
to the consumers of the United States. 
Mr. President, there never was a 
greater fallacy on earth than the fal- 
lacy stated on this floor; and that was 
stated, if I understood it correctly, in 
the article the Senator from Missis- 
sippi sent to the desk, that the Tarlft 
rates are added to the cost of the ar- 
ticle to the consumer. It is a very old 
fallacy. It has been exploded over and 
over again, and I confess that I have 
thought it hardly worth while to dis- 
pute it during this debate. For that 
reason I have not made any sugges- 
tion about it until this moment. 

A Hocus Pocus That the Tariff Had noth- 
ing to Do With. 

Mr. TILLMAN. Without undertak- 
ing to explain exactly how or why it 
should be charged up to the Tariff, I 
will simply call the attention of the 
Senator to the fact that some days 
ago the Senator from West Virginia 
[Mr. Scott] gave a very interesting ex- 
hibit of glass. He said that while the 
manufacturer would sell those pitchers 
at 90 cents a dozen, somebody, some 
malefactor somewhere, was charging 
the poor people, the consumers, 25 
cents or a dollar apiece for them. They 
varied in price from $3 a dozen to a 
dollar apiece. How did that hocus- 
pocus come about if it was not due to 
the Tariff? 

Mr. GALLINGER. I will say to the 
Senator that, in my judgment, the 
Tariff had nothing more to do with 
that than any other impossible thing 
that the Senator can conceive of. The 
fact is it was shown that under a 
high Tariff we are making in this 
country pitchers selling at 90 cents a 
dozen, and before we had a Tariff, 
and when we were being supplied with 
pitchers from abroad, we were paying 
six or eight or ten times as much as 
we are paying for them now. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I will leave the Sen- 
ator to wrestle with that problem. 



How Protection Reduced the Cost of Stee/ 
Rails. 

Mr. GALLINGER. It does not need 
any wrestling with. It speaks for It- 
self. There was a very distinguished 
man in the other House before my ad- 
vent to that body, a very distinguished 
Democrat. He was a Protectionist — 
Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania — and in 
1883 Mr. Randall, in a speech in the 
House, demonstrated that steel rails 
cost in this country |30.03 a ton at 
that time, and I presume Mr. Randall 
was correct in the figures he then pre- 
sented. 

Mr. President, the Tariff on steel 
rails at that time was $17 a ton. So if 
the Tariff rates are to be added to the 
cost of the article, those steel rails 
ought to have cost $47 a ton, but the 
fact is that at that time steel rails 
were selling in this country at $35 a 
ton. So it is absurd to talk about the 
duty being added to the product. 

It is within the memory of some 
gentlemen in this Chamber when we 
were paying in this country $150 a ton 
for steel rails. 

Mr. DEPEW. One hundred and sev- 
enty dollars. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Yes; I recall that 
we were paying $170 a ton; and it is 
still fresh in the minds of some men 
younger than I am when we were pay- 
ing $60, $70, and $80 for steel rails. 
But that was before we put a Tariff 
of $27 on steel rails; and when we put 
the duty of $27 a ton on steel rails, 
and when Mr. Randall said they cost 
$30.03 to make, they were sold in our 
market for $35 a ton. 

Cost of Wire Nails Reduced by Protec- 
tion. 

I want to make another illustration. 
I heard the words "wire nails" In the 
article read from the desk. That is an 
interesting theme for Protectionists. 
In 1882 there were made in this coun- 
try just 50,000 kegs of wire nails. We 
were dependent upon foreign markets 
for all of our wire nails except the 
50,000 kegs which were manufactured 
in this country, and the price for wire 
nails at that time was 8.35 cents per 
pound. We imposed a duty of 4 cents 
a pound on wire nails, the duty at that 
time being 1 cent. Under the duty of 
1 cent we were able to make only 50,- 



204 



GALLINGER. SMOOT. ALDRICH. BEVERIDGE. 



000 kegs of wire nails in the United 
States, and we had to buy from for- 
eigners at 8.35 cents a pound all the 
wire nails we consumed except the 
50,000 kegs which we made. What 
was the result? 

If the duty was to be added to the 
cost of those nails, the 3 cents addi- 
tional duty would have made the cost 
11.35 cents a pound; and yet under 
the McKinley Tariff law, with a duty 
of 4 cents a pound, we manufactured 
in 1901, in place of 50,000 kegs, 9,803,- 
822 kegs, and they were sold in the 
American market at 2.45 a pound or 
less than one-third of what they cost 
when we were dependent upon foreign 
countries. So in 1901, under adequate 
Tariff, we were making 196 times as 
many wire nails as we made in 1882, 
and they were being sold at 30 per 
cent of what they cost in 1882. 

Reduction in Price a Never Failing Re- 
sult. 

I want in these few minutes to get 
back to the Protection facts on this 
question, and to say to the Senate and 
to the country, if the country chooses 
to know the fact, that there is not 
one iota of truth In the declaration be- 
ing made here in season and out of 
season that the duties that are levied 
upon foreign products are added to the 
co:it to the American consumer. In 
a great many instances it has resulted 
precisely to the contrary, because 
when the foreigner has the market he 
does with us exactly as he did in re- 
gard to steel rails and wire nails; he 
fixes his own price, and the American 
consumer of necessity must pay that 
price. But when the foreigner is even 
partially excluded from our markets 
and American ingenuity and American 
enterprise and American capital are 
put Into our industries, and competi- 
tion results, then this great and mar- 
velous reduction In price that has 
come to the American people on steel 
rails and wire nails is an Inevitable 
and never-failing result. 



The "Made in Germany" Imposition. 

From the Congressional Record of May If), 

1909. 

REED SMOOT, of Utah. I have an 

invoice of a razor here that cost $2.50, 

and I have the receipted bill showing 



what was paid for it. That razor was 
made in Germany. The very highest 
value of razors that are imported in 
this country, as you will notice by the 
estimate sheet, is $4.79 a dozen. Here 
is a receipted bill for $2.50 apiece. If 
you want the name of the firm, I can 
give it you. 

Mr, ALDRICH. I hope my colleague 
on the committee will not lose sight of 
what to me Is the most striking part 
of this case. A large part of the razors 
that are imported in the United States 
are imported at a unit of value of 10 
cents each, $1.21 a dozen. Did anyone 
here present ever see a 10-cent razor 
or anything approximating a 10-cent 
razor? 

Mr. SMOOT. I do not think that, or 
I would not ask for an increase of 
duty. Owing to the very fact that the 
labor In a razor is nearly 90 per cent 
and the very fact that the labor in 
Germany costs only about one-third 
what it does in this country, the pres- 
ent duty of the Dingley law will not 
allow the American manufacturer to 
manufacture razors in competition 
with Germany. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I wish to ask the 
Senator just one other question. The 
Senator from Missouri stated when he 
offered his amendment that it was im- 
possible to make a razor in this coun- 
try as good as that made abroad. Can 
the Senator give any information upon 
that question? 

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, the very 
fact that the cutlery of the United 
States is made here and made In a bet- 
ter blade is the reason why the Amer- 
ican importers here import knives and 
cutlery from a foreign country and 
have stamped upon the blade with an 
asphalt mixture "made in Germany," 
and as soon as it comes over here they 
remove it from the blade. Why? Be- 
cause It is not as good as an American 
knife. 

Flagrant Undervaluation of Cutlery. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I am 
willing to venture the statement — 
which I think can not be successfully 
contradicted — that the prices at which 
this and similar articles are Imported 
Into this country do not in any de- 
gree represent the real value of the 
article. 

Mr. BAILEY. You mean the Im- 
porter swindles the Government? 



I 



ALDRICH. HALE. SMOOT. 



205 



Mr. ALDRICH. I mean to say that 
there is the most persistent and flag- 
rant undervaluation of cutlery and of 
all similar articles by. the importer. 
Take this matter of razors: In the 
case of razors which are Imported, 
valued at 10 cents apiece, 10 cents 
does not represent the real value of 
the razor and the customs valuation 
does not represent within many per 
cent the price which those razors are 
sold for to jobbers in this country, to 
say nothing about the retailer. I say 
that the import value does not repre- 
sent the real value of the goods 
abroad. 



Determined Invasion into American 
Market of Foreigners, Especially 
the Germans. 

From the Congressional Record of May 1.5, 
1909. 

EUGENE HALE, of Maine. Mr. 
President, what to me in this discus- 
sion is brought out more clearly than 
anything else, and which is extremely 
depressing, is the raid that has been 
made in the last few years by foreign 
producers, particularly those of Ger- 
many, to get possession of our mar- 
kets for this product. The statements 
made by the chairman of the commit- 
tee [Mr. Aldrich] and by the Senator 
from Utah [Mr. Smoot] show what the 
discussion upon every schedule in this 
bill has disclosed — the determined in- 
vasion into the American market of 
foreigners, and especially the Ger- 
mans. I am not filled with much faith 
that in this instance the progress of 
that invasion can be arrested. It is a 
melancholy exposition that the manu- 
facture of this important article In this 
country has been practically destroyed. 
If there is anj-thing in the Protective 
system, the article should be produced 
by our labor, and we should be able 
to distribute it here to the jobber and 
the retailer at a fair rate. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Assuming that the 
price fixed by the reports is the cor- 
rect one. If it costs 10 cents to produce 
a razor in Germany and 20 cents in 
the United States, it will require 100 
per cent duty to equalize the condi- 
tions in the two countries. That does 
not mean that it does not cost any- 
thing to produce a razor in Germany, 
or that there is no labor involved In 



the production of razors in Germany; 
but it means that It costs twice as 
much to produce a razor under equal 
conditions in the United States as it 
does in Germany. And so far as I 
am concerned, I shall have no hesi- 
tancy in voting for a duty which will 
equalize the conditions. 

Mr. SMOOT. The total production of 
the razor manufacturing institutions of 
this country was $140,000 in the year 
1908, and of that amount about 90 
per cent was paid In wages, which 
would be ?126,000. 

How the Price from Producer to Con- 
sumer /s Enfianced. 

Mr. HALE. Nobody has. arraigned 
the retailers as being in a conspiracy 
or as being robbers or as deserving of 
execration and reproach. But it has 
been claimed, and it will be discussed 
—it may be hereafter — that the course 
of trade is such that when a cheap ar- 
ticle is put upon the market of the 
country by the manufacturers, the 
stages it passes through before it 
reaches the consumer from the whole- 
sale dealer, the jobber, and the retailer 
enhance the price, in some cases more 
and in some cases less. But there has 
been no attempt to set up the claim 
that the retail dealer in the country 
anywhere is deserving of reproach as 
a man who is robbing the people. The 
prices that he asks are a part of the 
system of the trade, by which every 
ai'ticle pa,sses through one hand and 
then another, and in each case the 
price is enhanced. 

All that I, or that any Senator who 
spoke of it, sought to claim was that 
the rate fixed by the Tariff upon the 
manufacturer had little to do with the 
price the consumer paj^s at his own 
door. That is not a new proposition. 
It is an old question. 

Mr. SMOOT. I have not charged the 
retailer with any exorbitant profit any 
more than I charged the jobber. It 
is the different stages of handling the 
goods from the time they leave the 
manufacturer's hands until they reach 
the consumer. There may be one, 
two, or three handlings by jobbers 
and then one, two, or three from the 
jobber to the retailer. It is the whole 
system of trade that I spoke of In re- 
lation to the price of glass. 



206 



FLINT. CUMMINS. BACON. ALDRICH. 



Retailers Are Making Exorbitant Profits. 

Mr. FLINT. The Senator looks 
around to me when he speaks of in- 
justice being done to the retailer. As 
far as any statement I have made in 
reference to the retailer is concerned, 
I reiterate it — I think no Injustice has 
been done the retailer. In my opin- 
ion, the retailers of this country are 
making exorbitant profits. Many of 
the retailers who have been making 
exorbitant profits have taken pains to 
circulate the report that the high 
prices are caused bj^ the Protective 
Tariff. This is not a fact. I think 
many of these articles that have ap- 
peared in the public press have been 
in.spired by department stores. The 
effect of the articles has been to call 
attention to the fact that they are 
making extravagant and exorbitant 
profits out of their business. I want 
to repeat and reiterate what I have 
said on this subject. 

I say that the retailers in this coun- 
try have taken pains to circulate peti- 
tions in their stores asking that the 
duty on this article or that article be 
reduced on the ground that the Tariff 
upon the article made the high cost to 
the consumer. I want to say that in 
each instance where they have sent 
in these petitions the Tariff is not a 
factor in fixing the price, but it is the 
exorbitant price charged by the re- 
tailer, and a reduction in the duty 
would not reduce the price charged by 
the department stores and other retail 
stores throughout the country. 



Why Lower Prices for Export Are 
Accepted. 

From the Congressional Record of May 7.5, 
1909. 

ALBERT B. CUMMINS, of Iowa. The 
Senator from Pennsylvania has said 
more than once that the Protection we 
now have upon this commodity is in- 
adequate. I should like to know how 
he explains the fact tliat during the 
year 1907 we exported nearly $7,000,- 
000 worth of this commodity and sold 
It in competition with the world, in 
the markets of the world, if our Pro- 
tection is inadequate? 

Mr. OLIVER. I can not explain 
that, Mr. President, except upon the 
theory that perhaps by reason of an 



excessive desire to keep the mills run- 
ning full the manufacturers in all 
probability cut the prices, perhaps be- 
low the cost of manufacture. I know 
that that is done sometimes. I know 
that I myself" have done it. I have in 
my career as a manufacturer sold 
goods frequently below the actual cost 
of production in order to supplj' the 
surplus that would keep my establish- 
ment running full, and thereby enable 
me to"* give employment to all the men 
for whose well-being I felt mj'self re- 
sponsible, and at the same time lower 
the cost of production to such a point 
as to enable me to meet all kinds of 
competition. 

Foreign Surplus Would Be Dumped Here 
at Low Prices. 

Mr. BACON. I will put it a little 
more simply, then, because I can not 
give the Senator entire credit for sin- 
cerity and candor in that reply. There 
is no man in this Chamber, and, I pre- 
sume, very few on the whole North 
American Continent, who have a clear- 
er view as to the intricacies of the 
Tariff than the Senator from Rhode 
Island. I do not pretend to approach 
even in sight-seeing distance of him 
in that regard, and for that reason I 
appeal to him for the Information. 

I do not know that I can express 
myself any more clearly, but I will 
try. The Senator said he apprehended 
that the reduction proposed in the 
steel schedule in this bill in the rates 
of Tariff would result in great in- 
justice and injury, I think he said, to 
those engaged in the production of 
steel. The question which I desire to 
ask the Senator, and which I have at- 
tempted to ask him, is this: Is that 
apprehension on the part of the Sen- 
ator based on the belief that the re- 
ductions proposed will result in cheap- 
er steel to the consumers in this coun- 
try? 

Mr. ALDRICH. No; not exactly that. 
My apprehension was that the steel 
producers of Germany and Belgium 
might at times throw into tliis country 
their surplus stock and sell it for 
whatever price it would bring here 
and put out of employment a large 
number of people engaged in this 
country in the same industry, and thus 
give to foreign labor the business 



ALDRICH. McCUMBER. KEAN. 



201 



which ought to be given to American 
labor. 

Anything Which Invades the Market la 
an Injury to the American Workman 
and to the People of the Entire Coun- 
try. 

I say — and that is the same rule 
which applies to all Protective duties, 
and there is no question about it — 
that Protective duties are levied for 
the benefit of giving employment to 
the industries of Americans, to our 
people in the United States and not to 
foreigners. That is the whole ques- 
tion about it. Anything which in- 
vades that market, which we claim be- 
longs to the American people by the 
highest possible right, especially if it 
invades it in a way which is not, per- 
haps, legitimate, is an injury to the 
American workman and, therefore, to 
American industry. 

Anything which brings about an In- 
jurious reduction of prices in the Unit- 
ed States, which puts American labor- 
ers out of employment and reduces the 
purchasing power of the American 
people, is not only Injurious to the in- 
terests primarily affected, but is injuri- 
ous to the people of the entire coun- 
try. 

Would the Consumers Then Be Benefited? 

Mr. President, take a suppositious 
case of a man who Is erecting a steel 
building in New York, who desires to 
have that work done, if you please, by 
the product of American industry. 
Some foreigner finds that he has a 
surplus stock and he comes over here 
and bids lower than any American can 
bid. The consumer in that case pos- 
sibly gets a lower price — I have no 
objection to conceding that — but what 
is the general effect of it? One man 
gets a lower price to-day; but sup- 
pose the whole American people get 
lower prices than the article can pos- 
sibly be made for in the United States, 
does the Senator, then, think that the 
consumers, as he calls them, are ben- 
efited? Suppose you destroy abso- 
lutely the iron and steel industry of 
the United States; are the American 
consumers to be benefited by that? 
Does the Senator suppose that prices 
would be kept down or that the min- 
ute that those foreign gentlemen had 
control of the American market that 



the American consumer would not 
then have to pay more than he is now 
paying? I think so. 



Why the Tariff on Sewing Machines 
Should Be Retained. 

From the Congressional Record of May 15. 
1909. 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North 
Dakota. I will take occasion for just 
a inoment's interruption upon a matter 
concerning which I thought I would 
speak to the Senator from Mississippi, 
and that is in regard to the revenue 
obtained from sewing machines and 
other machines, and the fact that we 
receive no revenue justifying us in 
placing them upon the free list. The 
Senator is usually conservative, but I 
must say that he has somewhat aban- 
doned his usual attitude in these 
Tariff discussions. The Senator under- 
stands as well as I do that the samfe 
manufacturing companies have their 
branches and their manufacturing es- 
tablishments in the Old World. I 
think the Singer Company, for in- 
stance, has one in London, has it not? 

Mr. KEAN. They have one in Can- 
ada 

Mr. McCUMBER. Yes; and one in 
Berlin. 

Mr. KEAN (continuing). One in Ger- 
many and one in Russia. 

Mr. McCUMBER. And one in Russia. 

Mr. KEAN. I should like to say to 
the Senator that they have an estab- 
lishment in my town w^hich employs 
nearly 9,000 people, and they employ 
in the distribution of sewing machines 
over the United States more than 50,- 

000 people. 

Would Be Shipped Over Here and Throw 
Our Own Labor Out of Employment. 

Mr. McCUMBER. But, Mr. President, 
the point is that these machines are 
manufactured, on the other side of the 
ocean and are supplying the demand 
on that side. If we place them on the 
free list, what do we gain by it? They 
will simply be manufactured there, 
shipped over to this country, and sold 
for exactly the same price that our 
manufacturers now sell them, and our 
laborers on this side of the ocean will 
be entirely thrown out of employment. 

1 do not think there can be any ques- 
tion about that. 



208 



McCUMBER. DEPEW. BEVERIDGE. SMOOT. 



I do not believe, and I do not be- 
lieve that the Senator thinks, that tak- 
ing the duty off of those sewing ma- 
chines would reduce the price a single 
cent. The only question is whether 
they shall be manufactured in this 
country for a given price, or whether 
they shall be manufactured by labor- 
ers in another country by the same 
manufacturers, brought over to this 
country, and sold in the markets of 
this country for practically the same 
price at which they are being sold to- 
day. 

Mr. McLAURIN. I ask the Senator 
from North Dakota if he would be 
willing to vote for a Tariff of 10 per 
cent? He speaks of my conservatism 
and nonconservatism, and I have retro- 
graded, according to the Senator from 
North Dakota, lately, but from the 
conservatism to which I had entitled 
myself in his estimation I want to 
know if I will be so conservative as 
to put the rate at 10 per cent if the 
Senator from North Dakota will sup- 
port with his iisual eloquence and 
ability a Tariff of that amount? 

Mr. McCUMBER. I certainly would 
not. 

Mr. McLAURIN. I thought so. 

Would Noi Support a Low Tariff. 

Mr. McCUMBER. The reason I 
would not is that the difference in the 
cost of production at home and abroad, 
in my opinion, is fully 30 per cent; and 
that is the only Tariff we have placed 
upon the machines, about 30 per cent 
ad valorem. I believe that by taking 
off the 30 per cent you would prob- 
ably close some of the factories on 
this side, and just to the extent they 
were being closed on this side you 
would necessarily transfer the manu- 
facture to the same amount on the 
other side. 

Mr. SMOOT. There is this question 
to be taken into consideration: I 
know that many of the manufacturers 
of this country sell sewing machines in 
carload lots at a very low rate. I 
know they have sold as low as $19 
apiece, and then they are retailed — 
that is, to the consumer, for $60 or $65. 

I desire to call attention to the fact 
that that is on account of the way the 
l)usiness is done in this country, and It 
is never done the same way in a for- 
eign country. The retailers have agents. 



and they go from door to door. They 
sell the machine on time, and if they 
can get as the first payment what 
the machine cost they will take an old 
machine in exchange, and they will call 
it $60 or $65, the manufacturer having 
sold it as low as $19. Does not the Sen- 
ator know that these are absolute facts? 
Mr. BEVERIDGE. I wish the Sena- 
tor from Utah woiild make his state- 
ment again, because I was diverted 
and did not hear it. But I got the 
Impression that the wholesale price 
wiped out that difficulty. If the diffi- 
culty can be disposed of, I should like 
to have the whole facts presented. So 
I ask the Senator from Utah to state it 
again. We were all diverted by con- 
versation. 

fn Carload Lots $19; to the Consumer 
$65. 

Mr. SMOOT. I now make the state- 
ment again, that the manufacturers of 
sewing machines in thfs country sell 
in carload lots at about $19 apiece 
sewing machines that are sold to the 
consumer for $60 to $65; and I went 
on to explain why that was — the heavy 
expenses of men traveling from door 
to door and selling the machine at $65, 
with a first payment made, and taking 
old machines at a high price. It is the 
system of selling machines in this 
country. It does not exist in a foreign 
country. 

Mr. McLAURIN. Will the Senator 
allow me to ask him where he gets 
this information? 

Mr. SMOOT. I get the information 
from the very fact that I have seen 
these invoices to institutions in my 
own State that have bought the ma- 
chines in carload lots. So it Is not 
the manufacturer; It is the mode of do- 
ing business. 



Free=Trade Brought on the French 
Revolution; Protection Saved 
France. 

From the Congressional Record of May i8. 
J909. 

CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW. of New 
York. The favorite method now of 
attacking the Protective principle Is to 
proclaim loyalty to the principle of 
Protection and oppose its application. 

The wool schedule gave to the Sen- 



DEPEW. 



209 



ate and the country one of the most 
entertaining addresses ever delivered 
upon this floor by the senior Senator 
from Iowa [Mr. Dolliver]. We are apt 
to think that wool is American as a 
political question. But wooTcreated and 
then destroyed Florence and Flanders; 
impoverished and then enriched Great 
Britain. Without going into a general 
Tariff discussion, the historj^ of wool 
is illuminating. In the middle ages 
the people of civilized countries were 
clothed in woolen garments. Wool 
and its manufactured products were 
the commerce of the world. England 
grew the wool and sold it to Flanders, 
where it was turned into the finished 
product. England did not have the 
machinery nor could she procure from 
the Papal states alum, a substance 
absolutely' necessary in those days for 
the finishing of cloth. But in the 
reign of Elizabeth alum was found in 
sufl^icient quantities in England, and" 
then began the Tariff legislation which 
we have inherited. England placed 
an export duty upon wool which made 
it impossible for continental nations to 
compete with her manufactures. She 
placed a Tariff duty which shut them 
out of her market. 

When Lancashire, the greatest cot- 
ton manufacturing center in the world, 
demonstrated in a small way that it 
could make cotton goods. Great Brit- 
ain prohibited the importation of cot- 
ton goods from India into England. 
Then the great English inventors, 
Arkwright and Harg'reaves, gave to 
their country the perfected spinning 
jenny, and Great Britain controlled 
the cotton market of the world. Her 
own markets were closed to the for- 
eigner, and the English statesmen saw 
that this little island, with its grow- 
ing population which had come from 
manufactures, must find foreign trade. 
The greatest of English statesmen, 
Pitt, saw that the philosophers whose 
ideas created the French Revolution 
were controlling the policy of France. 

Why Great Britain Toole Up tfie Free- 
Trade Policy. 

Knowing that Great Britain, because 
of her cheap coal and because of her 
monopoly of inventions, could make 
woolen and cotton goods cheaper than 
France, he proposed to the idealists 
that there should be Free-Trade. The 



proposition was hailed by the disciples 
of Rousseau and Quesnay as an ap- 
proach to the millennium. In a few 
years every factory in France was 
closed. There have been many causes 
assigned for the French Revolution. 
Undoubtedly tyranny and bad govern- 
ment had much to do with It, but the 
French Revolution began in Paris, 
which was the manufacturing center 
of France, and then spread to the oth- 
er manufacturing cities. It was the 
starving unemployed who had been 
driven from all occupations by the 
genius of the British statesman and 
the folly of their philosophers which 
more than anything else precipitated 
and prolonged the French Revolution. 
Then came the struggle by the Jaco- 
bins to support the people from the 
plunder of the nobility and the cutting 
off of their heads; then the plunder 
of the rich business men In every 
branch; then the plunder of the farm- 
ers, because they would not accept 
the worthless paper money. 

A million lives were sacrificed by the 
French terror, of whom only 2,000 be- 
longed to the noble class and the rest 
to the productives who still had a 
little property in their farms or In 
their small occupations and against 
whom was directed the rage of the un- 
pmployed who had got possession of 
the government. Then, when the revo- 
lutionists had guillotined each other. 
Napoleon came to the front. His first 
idea was that France could be sup- 
ported by the plunder of the Continent, 
but that great original genius, when 
in supreme power, soon saw his mis- 
take and built a Tariff wall not onl^i 
around France, but around the Conti- 
nent, and the reviving industries of 
his country provided the means for 
his wars and recruited, clothed, and 
fed his armies. 

England Is Fighting a Losing Battle. 

Great Britain's control of the wool 
and cotton industries now is shared 
with Protective countries whose mar- 
kets she formerly monopolized. She is 
fighting with them a losing battle in 
Asiatic markets, where all the world 
competes. Her great rival, Germany, 
with as good machinery and cheaper 
labor and an equal command of the 
raw materials, is entering the English 
market under that well-known econo- 



2lO 



MPEW. 



mic rule by which manufaciilrers of 
every country, in order to keep their' 
mills in operation and their men em- 
ployed, sell the surplus practically at 
cost in other countries. This process 
is filling- the English market ahd driv- 
ing one Industry after another to th^ 
wall. Great Britain is graspiag slowly 
the economic fact that anything pro- 
duced in another country and sold 
within her territory puts out of em- 
ployment and reduced) to public charity 
exactly the number of men in England 
who are employed in producing' this 
article In Germany. 

'rh§ unemployed wandefing idly 
about ih% fetfeets looking for any stray 
job, however poor It may be, to satisfy 
the pangs of hunger, see in the shop 
window's Everywhere the things upon 
which tiiey at ofie time worked and 
could make a good liviiig for them- 
selves and families, marked "Made in 
Germans'.'* It is stated that there are 
to-day in Great Britain 7,000,000 of un- 
employed. How to care for them or 
furnish them support is the most anxi- 
ous problem of the British statesmen. 
John Morley has stated in one of his 
speeches that at one time in the course 
of their lives 45 per cent of the work- 
ingmen of Great Britain who have 
reached 60 years of age have been in 
the pauper class. 

If England to-day had a Tariff which 
would equalize the cost of production 
with Germany. Belg'ium, France, and 
Holland, including fair wages to her 
people, she might again become not 
the workshop of the world, as she once 
was, but very much nearer to It than 
she is to-day. Anyway, she could hold 
her own. 

Believe in Protection, but Oppose Its Ap- 
plication. 

The eloquent and learned speeches 
which have been delivered here have 
developed a new kind of Protection. 
The new school believe in the princi- 
ple, but oppose its application. Our 
Southern friends reject the principle 
of Protection, but believe in its appli- 
cation to their own products. I believe 
if a committee were appointed, com- 
posed exclusively of the Senators on 
our side who object most violently to 
this bill, that they would have more 
difficulty In agreeing with one another 
than It Is understood our Democratic 



Members had when they caucused the 
tneasure. 

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Clapp], in a very eloquent and attract- 
ive address, feared that the Republican 
party was rushing tapidly and blindly 
upon the rocks because the pledge of 
the party and the expectation of the 
people Were that there should be a 
general revision downward. In my 
judgment the pledge of the party and 
the expectation of the people are that 
we should do exact justice in this mat- 
ter, upon every schedule In the bill, 
and upon every one of the 2,000 items 
which are affected. I believe that the 
practice of Protection, which has 
made our country what it is and our 
people what they are, has as firm a 
hold upon the electorate as ever. I 
believe that it is thoroughly under- 
stood and assented to by the masses 
that we should so arrange our Tariff 
policy as to constantly enlarge the 
area of production and employment 
within our own borders, and do it by 
imposing a duty which will equalize 
the cost of production, with due re- 
gard to the higher wage which we 
expect our artisans to have over those 
w^hich prevail in countries in competi- 
tion with us. 

What Free-Trade Did to Dundee. 

The city of Dundee in Scotland had 
a very large industry in the making 
from jute of cotton bagging. It was 
a monopoly. They made the bagging 
for the cotton, not only for the United 
States, but for all the other countries. 
Our manufacturers found that with a 
sufficient Tariff this bagging could be 
successfully produced in this country. 
It led to the creation in different States 
of some 300 mills with the employment 
of many thousands of people. The Tar- 
iff did not destroy the Dundee facto- 
ries, because it was not high enough 
to prevent competition, and the Dun- 
dee factories still had other fields than 
the United States for their operation. 
But mills were established in India 
where labor was 30 cents a day, 
against 7.5 in Dundee and $1.50 to $2 in 
the United States. Great Britain be- 
ing a Free-Trade country, the pundee 
millers were bankrupted, and a large 
population added to the already In- 
crea.sing numbers of the unemployed. 
Now we are met with a demand to 



DEPEnV. 



211 



wipe out our own mills and throw out 
of employment our own people in or- 
der to let in this cheap Indian produc- 
tion, with which it is impossible to 
compete except by Tariff Protection, 
Who would be benefited? There are 
no shrewder manufacturers and mer- 
chants in the world than the English, 
and they control these factories and 
are already in our market. When they 
have a monopoly the cost to the cotton 
farmer will be raised far beyond what 
he pays to-day and he will be utterly 
helpless. You may say he could escape 
that by again renewing the Tariff, but 
it takes hundreds of thousands of dol- 
lars to organize a mill, and capital 
after such an experience would never 
enter upon the uncertain sea of hys- 
terical legislation. 

I might cite a hundred instances 
w^here the changing conditions of pro- 
duction and of cost, as governed by 
wages, by hours, and by invention, 
make the rule of a revision downward 
simply the adoption of practically 
Free-Trade. 

What Protection Has Done for This Coun-^ 
try. 

What has been accomplished by Pro- 
tection is happily instanced in our 
State of New York among many in- 
dustries. Hats have built up a thriv- 
ing city at Yonkers, and are building 
other industrial communities in other 
parts of the State. The Protection for 
men's gloves has created a community 
of 30,000 people and reduced the price 
from two and one-half to three dollars, 
as it was when England had the mo- 
nopoly, to a dollar and a dollar and 
a half. Now, the great English manu- 
facturers are moving to Gloversville. 
An equivalent Protection for women's 
gloves would lead in two years to the 
employment of 50,000 men to the de- 
struction of the foreign monopoly and 
would give to our own people an arti- 
cle much cheaper and better than they 
have now. The same results have fol- 
lowed in a thriving community of 30,- 
000 in the finishing of lumber at Tona- 
wanda and corresponding results at 
Ogdensburg and other places. I might 
enlarge this list almost indefinitely. 

No country can show figures like 
these: That since Republican Protec- 
tion became a fixed policy the wealth 
of the United States has increased six 



times, our foreign trade three times, 
the wages in our factories three times, 
our railroad mileage six times, our 
foreign commerce three times, and the 
value of our manufactured products 
seven times, our exports from 1897 to 
1909, 300 per cent. Except for these 
conditions we never could have had our 
railroads carrying populations to the 
farms and productive possibilities car- 
rying the factory near to the raw ma- 
terial; we never could have had manu- 
facturing centers which brought the 
markets to the farmer's door; we never 
could have had the consumers, whose 
numbers and whose prosperity give 
the farmer his opportunity, the manu- 
facturer his opportunity, the merchant 
his opportunity, the railroad its oppor- 
tunity, and the steamboat and the ca- 
nal their opportunities. 

Producer and Consumer. 

There never was greater nonsense 
than this attempt to establish irrecon- 
cilable antagonism between producers 
and consumers. They are constantly 
interchangeable. Our country buys 
one-third of the productions of the 
earth. Why? Because we have the 
money. Why the money? Because we 
have the employment, and with the 
employment the wages, and with the 
wages the acquisition of the habits 
which make the luxuries of to-day the 
necessities of to-morrow. 

My friend, the senior Senator from 
Iowa, in one of the ablest and most 
eloquent addresses delivered in this 
Chamber, has attacked the wool and 
cotton schedules. That speech has 
been very widely quoted, more, I think, 
than any which has been made here. 
A can of dynamite intelligently ex- 
ploded will get more headlines and 
editorial comment than all the railroad 
trains of the country carrying the 
products of the farmer to the factories 
and the market, and of the markets 
of the country in distributing the re- 
sults of their sales back to the farms 
and the factories. Automatic prosper- 
ity is like the air we breathe — it has 
to be questioned to interest anybody. 

Much of the argument made by pro- 
fessing Protectionists has been to 
throw from their pedestals the statues 
of William Allison, William McKinley, 
and Governor Dingley. These three 
eminent creators and advocates of Tar- 



212 



DEPEW. 



iff bills are charged to have known 
little about what they were doing. No 
one charges them with dishonesty, 
either in thought or purpose, but the 
general Impression left by the criti- 
cisms upon them is that their country- 
men were never more mistaken than 
in the estimate which they have of 
them that they were the most distin- 
guished, as well as the best Informed, 
of Protectionists. We must believe, If 
we are to credit the mistakes and fail- 
ures which they are alleged to have 
made in 1892 and 1897, that no states- 
man ever occupied permanent posi- 
tions in either House who were so 
easily fooled. My faith in them is 
unimpaired. 

There is nothing new under the sun, 
and 

The Oldest of Free-Trade Cries Is the 
One of Revision Downward. 

In all the speeches that have been 
made here, so far as I can recall them, 
the only open and direct attack upon 
the Protective system as a policy or a 
system has been from the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon], but 
attacks have, nevertheless, been ef- 
fective and deadly, and have produced 
their impression upon the country be- 
cause theytcame from our own house- 
hold, from those who proclaim their 
undying faith in the principle, but 
claim that in practice it leads to nearly 
all the disastrous results which are 
charged against it by its open enemies. 
Congressman Morrison presented the 
only true rule if we are to adopt a re- 
vision downward. He proposed a hori- 
zontal reduction in the whole schedule 
of 25 per cent. To have accepted his 
plea would have been to admit his 
contention that there should be no 
such thing as a duty upon any article 
which should equalize the cost of pro- 
duction between this and other coun- 
tries with due regard to the wages of 
American labor. 

The Tariff Revision Pledge. 

T was a delegate to the national con- 
vention at Chicago, and mingled as 
much as anyone with the representa- 
tives of the Republican party. I was 
one of the vice-presidents. The ab- 
sorbing question was not revision of 
the Tariff, but the hope that Roose- 
velt would accept and the fear that he 



might take a renomlnation. The sub- 
ject uppermost in all minds was not 
the Tariff, but whether anarchy or 
sanity would prevail in the resolu- 
tions. When sanity won, there were 
the same progressive predictions of 
disasters, which were answered at the 
election by the largest of our popular 
majorities for Taft and the platform. 
There was no discussion of, public or 
private, and no committals to, public 
or private, any method of the revision 
of the Tariff. There was an under- 
standing, in which all Republicans are 
agreed, that the constantly changing 
conditions of production and invention 
and in cost in different countries not 
only justified but demanded an exami- 
nation of the Tariff schedules which 
have been in existence for ten years, 
with a view to doing equal and exact 
justice to every one of these items 
within Protective principles which 
have been inserted in the Republican 
platform ever since the formation of 
the party. 

The Chief Practical Use of Statistics. 

It has been charged here that the 
United States Steel Corporation made 
last year $9 a ton profit in excess of 
any legitimate return to which they 
were entitled. As the duty on their 
product was $7, if that statement is 
true, it is evident, after taking the 
entire duty off, they would still have 
made $2 more than a legitimate return 
upon their investment. There must be 
some error in the calculation which 
would justify the remark quoted by 
my eloquent friend from Iowa, that 
the chief practical use of statistics was 
to keep the other fellow from lying to 
you. Out of the Carlyle generalization 
has grown an American one that fig- 
ures will not lie unless a liar makes 
the figures. No one charges and no 
one believes that there has been an 
Intentional misrepresentation of the 
figures which have been presented by 
any Senator on any of the schedules 
in these debates, but if the profits of 
the United States Steel Corporation 
had been so preposterous, then the in- 
dependent companies which are as well 
situated, without any water in their 
capital, with the latest machinery and 
the best of management, would have 
been able to make large money. 

Even if It Is true that the United 






I 



DEPEW. 



213 



States Steel Corporation made $9 in 
excess of any fair and legitimate re- 
turn, even if it is true that the United 
States Steel Corporation can make iron 
$2 a ton cheaper than the independent 
companies, there, would still have been 
for the independent companies $7 of 
profit in addition to a legitimate re- 
turn upon their capital. As a matter 
of fact, they got no return at all. 

Why We Should Keep a Tariff on Sieel. 

The question has been raised why 
we should keep a Tariff upon steel to 
Protect independent producers, who 
have 50 per cent of the business and 
employment, at the expense of the 
American public? Why not, in order 
to reach the United States Steel Cor- 
poration, take the Tariff all off and let 
the independent companies be absorbed 
and the whole iron and steel business 
of the country placed in one great 
monopoly? No one would dare ar- 
gue or urge that, because the suf- 
ferers would be the consumers on 
the one side and the wage-earners 
on the other, with no possibility 
of relief in sight. Then why does 
not the United States Steel Cor- 
poration, having the power, as it 
apparently has, to produce more cheap- 
ly, crush its independent rivals? The 
American business man above all other 
qualities has good sense. With equal 
opportunities he fears no rivals. With 
too great opportunities he fears public 
opinion and legislation. To crush out 
the independent steel companies, it 
would be necessary for the United 
States Steel Corporation to forego divi- 
dends upon its common and preferred 
stock and carry on its business on a 
scale of meager profits for a number 
of j-^ears, while by dividing and leaving 
the market open to fair and reasonable 
competition, with the independent com- 
panies controlling one-half of the out- 
put and the business, it is enabled to 
earn profits which keep its works up 
to the standard, which give value to 
its bonds and its preferred stock, and 
which now and then permit a return 
upon the common. If it had a mo- 
nopoly and the American market was 
thrown open to competition, the laws 
of trade wouM lead to an understand- 
ing with those gignntic trusts which 
control the markets of Great Britain 
and of the Continent, especially Ger- 
many, to whose tyranny and operations 



the lamp-post would not be an effective 
remedy. You can hang a man upon a 
basis which would bring about the 
terrors of the French Revolution and 
the disruption of society, but the Uni- 
ted States Steel Corporation is owned 
by 100,000 stockholders, of whom 27,- 
500 are workers in the mines, the mills, 
and the furnaces, and on the railroads, 
and the steamboats of the corporation. 

Protection Has Wor/ced Wonders in the 
South. 

My eloquent friend from Georgia, In 
his brilliant defense of the South, 
claimed that the prosperity which has 
created a new South would have come 
without any Protective Tariff, and that 
the Protection which, in our judgment, 
has made the new South, has created 
a class who live by placing tax bur- 
dens upon their neighbors who owe 
them nothing and receive no benefits 
whatever from their existence. Now, 
let us see. At the close of the war 
the South, as he says, was purely agri- 
cultural, and all its property destroyed 
but land, and, as the Senator from 
Massachusetts has so ably demonstra- 
ted, it was that which presented such 
a frightful handicap during the civil 
war upon as gallant, brave, and re- 
sourceful a people as ever existed. 

Soon after the civil war Protection 
enabled capitalists to take advantage 
in the South of the principle that 
where the raw material and the manu- 
factory are side by side there Is pros- 
perity for both. Now, see this remark- 
able result: The manufactured prod- 
ucts of the South in 1880 were four 
hundred and fifty millions; in 1900 
one billion four hundred and fifty mil- 
lions; in 1908 $1,908,000,000. In view 
of these figures, where is the claim 
that the South is still an agricultural 
country and dependent entirely upon 
agriculture for its living? There is 
not a person, I believe, interested in 
the manufacturing industries of the 
South, who intelligently understands 
them, who would assent to-day to the 
repeal of the Tariff upon cotton prod- 
ucts and iron products because Pro- 
tection is an oppression upon their 
farming neighbors. 

// There Had Been Ho Protection. 

Mr. DEPEW. Suppose there had 
been no Protection upon cotton and 



214 



DEPEW. BACON. ALDRICH. GALLINGER. 



iron as Protection, would capitalists 
have been found in the South or else- 
where for the cotton and iron indus- 
try? 

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, if the 
Senator will permit me to reply, there 
certainly has been no Protection as to 
the production of cotton. 

Mr. DEPEW. I mean the manufac- 
ture of cotton. 

Mr. BACON. And cotton has not 
been produced 

Mr. DEPEW. I mean the manufac- 
ture of cotton and iron. 

Mr. BACON. Well, Mr. President, 
the manufacture of cotton and iron in 
the South has grown up after the 
prosperity had been restored there, but 
their agricultural products, far from 
having any assistance from the Pro- 
tective Tariff, bore an onerous and 
grievous burden all the time that they 
were thus restoring prosperity. The 
manufactures of the South have been 
the result of the wealth which has 
been dug out of the ground by the 
agriculturists of the South, and with- 
out any aid either from the Protective 
Tariff, or, generally speaking, from any 
other source outside of their own en- 
ergy and their own perseverance and 
labor. 

Mr. DEPEW. The manufactures of 
the South In 1880 were $450,000,000; 
in 1900, $1,450,000,000; and in 1908, 
$2,000,000,000, in round numbers. 

Mr. BACON. And. Mr. President, all 
that magnificent growth and develop- 
ment is the surplus profit which has 
been piled up by the Southern people 
in the prosecution of their agricul- 
tural interests at a time when they 
have borne a most tremendous tax to 
the manufacturing producer under the 
Protective Tariff, when they them- 
selves were receiving no reciprocal 
benefits from it. 

If the Senator will figure a little, 
and not despise figures, as he indicated 
just now he would be prone to do, he 
will find that the cotton crop of the 
South has not only enriched the South 
and that out of its profits have grown 
these immense industries of otlier 
kinds, manufacturing included, but he 
will find if he will examine the balance 
sheets that but for that cotton and but 
for that agricultural profit which has 
been made in spite of the Protective 
Tariff and not through any aid of it, 



the balance of trade would have been 
frequently against the people of the 
United States. 

Mr. President, the cotton crop sends 
out of this country something like five 
hundred million dollars a year which is 
the equivalent of gold, and it brings 
back into this country either actual 
gold or keeps gold from going out of 
the country by furnishing bills of lad- 
ing, which stand for gold. 

Mr. ALDRICH. What Is It that 
makes the marketing of that great cot- 
ton crop of the South possible? 

Mr. BACON. The world's demand 
for it. 

A Controlling Factor in the Industrial 
Prosperity of the World. 

Mr. ADDRICH. It is the industrial 
prosperity of the world, and the In- 
dustrial prosperity of the United States 
is the one important and controlling 
factor in that prosperity. 

Mr. DEPEW. Mr. President, to con- 
tinue one moment. As I said, from 
1865 to 1880 the South got $250,000,000 
of capital in manufactures, from 1880 
to 1890 she found $650,000,000. from 
1890 to 1900 she found $1,150,000,000, 
and from 1900 to 1908, $2,100,000,000. 
It would make the farmers of the 
world stand up and listen if told that 
that $2,100,000,000 came from the surplus 
profits of agriculture in the South, by 
which in that brief period people who 
had no money and no personal prop- 
erty to begin with could give to manu- 
factures such fabulous capital. 

Mr. GALLINGER. If we did not have 
a Tariff on the finished product of 
cotton, and foreign countries were 
supplying us with cotton goods, as 
they did in the early days, what would 
become of the $2,100,000,000 now In- 
vested in cotton manufactures in the 
South? 

Mr. DEPEW. I believe that if the 
Protective principle was taken out of 
our legislation the cotton industries 
of the South would disappear. 

]\rr. GALLINGER. Of course they 
would. 

Mr. DEPEW. And with that would 
come a paralysis of all Industries of 
the South. 

Phenomenal Prosperity for the Farmer. 

We have liad since 1897 phenomenal 
pro.sperity, employment, and wag^es, the 



bEPEW. CARTER; 



215 



farmers now getting a dollar and 
twenty-five cents a bushel for wheat 
and sixty cents for corn, and there is 
an open market for their stock. The 
farmers have paid off their mortgages, 
they have large surplus in the banks, 
and. they are fenjoying a prosperity 
such as has never been known by any 
agricultural people in the Wofld and 
hevef known by oUi* farmers befot-e. 
it is because Protection has created 
the market, has treated the hioney 
maker, has created 'the money spend- 
er, and has demonstrated the Interde^ 
pendence between the farm and the 
factory and between the producer and 
the consumer. The rise in the cost of 
living is not in rents, clothes, boots 
and shoes, or railroad travel, but it is 
in food. To suppose that under these 
conditions the farmers of the country 
believe that under this principle they 
are burdened and oppressed in order 
to support their fellow-countrymen 
who are engaged in other pursuits and 
who, by being engaged in these re- 
munerative pursuits, are their consum- 
ers and customers, is absurd. 

Sorry for the ProgresstWe Brethren. 

1 noticed in the papers of this morn- 
ing that William J. Bryan and Gover- 
nor Johnson, of Minnesota, deplored 
j^esterday the situation of the Repub- 
lican party. They said that if this Tar- 
iff bill as suggested either by the 
House or Senate committee became a 
law it would lead inevitably to the 
election of a Democratic House of Rep- 
resentatives two years from now and 
the Senate and the Presidency to fol- 
low four years from now. The tears 
which they shed should have been 
caught after the manner of the Pom- 
peians, in a glass bottle, and preserved 
in the archives of the Smithsonian In- 
stitution. I am sorry for the progres- 
sive brethren of our own household who 
are lamenting with great earnestness 
the impending ruin which they are so 
fearful will follow if they fail to have 
their way. I say to our distinguished 
Democratic sympathizers with Hamlet 
to the ghost of his father, "rest, rest, 
perturbed spirit." The impatient 

horses attached to the car of progress 
and prosperity are held in with difl^- 
culty, because of their impatience to 
enter upon the Marathon race of pro- 
duction and development. The fate 



of parties in power depends upon the 
effect of their action on the country. 
If because of this bill, when perfected, 
becoming a law we enter, as I believe 
we will, upon another decade surpass- 
ing in its beneficent results that which 
began with the Dingley Tariff, popu- 
larity will follow prosperity and the 
pat-ty can tohfldently te\y Upon the 
judgment of th^ people. 



Country Merchants Are iProtection- 

ISt^j I 

From the Gongressiowl Record of May i8, 

THOMAS H. CARTER, of Montana. 
The country merchants of the United 
States as a rule are Protectionists. 
They have observed that under the 
reign of the Protective policy trade is 
better, the purchasing power of the 
people is greater, work is more gen- 
erally given to men who are willing to 
work, and wages are better. So that 
the country merchant, the beneficiary 
of active trade, is a Protectionist In 
the majority of cases. As a rule, you 
will find that the country store is the 
headquarters for the Protection propa- 
ganda in the neig-hborhood. The coun- 
try merchant is not in conspiracy with 
anybody to create the impression that 
the high price of goods is attributable 
to the Protective Tariff. 

^0 ^eiv Rule Adopted > 

It has been often suggested here 
that the Republican party platform 
adopted at Chicago made a new rule 
for the guidance of those called upon 
to carry the Protective policy into 
legislative enactment. According to 
my conception of the fact, there never 
has been any other rule for the guid- 
ance of those engaged in Protective- 
Tariff legislation. There never was, 
according to my idea, any disposition 
on the part of any Republican Con- 
gress or statesman to impose a duty 
higher than that which made up the 
difference between the cost of wages 
here and abroad, plus a reasonable re- 
turn on the capital invested. That 
rule, of long standing, was crystal- 
lized into a plank in the platform at 
Chicago for the first time, but it was 
like an old rule of the common law 
with us from the beginning as a rule 
of action. 



216 



GALLINGER. HALE. DOLLIYER. 



Who Are the Consumers as Distin» 
guished from the Producers? 

From the Congressional Record of May j8, 
1909. 

JACOB H. GALLINGER, of New 
Hampshire. Mr. President, tlie Senator 
has raised a question that has been 
frequently raised here, as to consum- 
ers. There is one manufacturing es- 
tablishment in New Hampshire that 
employs 13,000 people. The chances are 
that they represent at least twice that 
number of persons, perhaps three 
times. 

Several SENATORS. Four times. 

Mr. GALLINGER. No; some of them 
are unmarried. Are not they consum- 
ers, and is it not important that they 
should have employment to provide 
for their families? Who are the con- 
sumers of this country as distinguished 
from the producers, including the men 
and women who earn wages? 

During the years 1894, 1895, and 1896, 
there were taken from the savings 
banks of New Hampshire, to meet their 
Immediate wants, $12,000,000 by the 
operatives, the farmers, and the labor- 
ing men who had deposited that money 
there. What has the Senator to say 
about those consumers? That money 
was taken from the banks for the rea- 
son that the kind of Tariff the Senator 
Is advocating threw them out of em- 
ployment and they had to go to the 
savings banks and take their earn- 
ings, which they had deposited there, 
a few dollars at a time, and use 
it to keep the wolf from the door 
and to keep their wives and chil- 
dren from suffering. Now, who are 
the consumers? Were those people 
consumers? 

During those three lean years of 
Democratic ascendency and low Tariff 
our people took $4,000,000 a year from 
the savings banks of my little State. 
Last year and the year before they In- 
creased their deposits about $600,000 
each year. 

In another body not long ago a dis- 
tinguished gentleman said: 

The Tariff bill is nothing short of 
an outrage. The witches whom Mac- 
beth met on the heath never brewed 
a hell broth lialf so vile as this legis- 
lative compound. 

Then that gentleman plunged his 
hands Into the caldron of broth and 



pulled out a prize package inscribed 
"Lumber" and voted for a duty on It. 



Great Department Stores Chiefly to 
Blame. 

From the Congressional Record of May 18, 
1909. 

EUGENE HALE, of Maine. I have 
never arraigned the retailers. I have 
simply said, and believe now, that the 
condition of business, the passing of the 
article througli the different hands, 
each stage enhancing the price, carries 
it way beyond the price at which the 
manufacturer sends it out to the coun- 
try. The ordinary retailer, the man In 
the small town or city, is an indus- 
trious and careful man, and is not en- 
gaged in any conspiracy. 

I will say to the Senator that I do 
think that what we may call the "great 
department establishments," or "de- 
partment stores," which retail goods, 
are somewhat to blame in this matter. 
I think they have taken advantage of 
the revision of the Tariff to send out 
circulars and statements to the effect 
that prices will be raised and must be 
raised because of the Tariff revision; 
but I do not think the country retail- 
er has anything to do with that, or Is 
in any way accountable for it. He 
charges his customers a great deal 
more than the manufacturer charges, 
but the course of trade obliges him 
to do so. My impression is, although 
I have no detailed figures, that the de- 
partment stores, the great hives of 
retail trade, have sought to impress 
upon their customers the view that 
they will have to put up their prices 
because of the revision of the Tariff. 
That is all that I feel can be laid at 
the door of the retailer. 



Tariff on Umbrellas. 

From the Congressional Record of M-ay 18, 
1909. 
JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER, of Iowa. 
Mr. President, that paragraph I asked 
to have go over largely out of curi- 
osity, so as to ascertain why the rate 
provided In the House bill had been 
changed and why the classification had 
been so arranged as to change the 
Dlngley rate on a portion of these ar- 
ticles. 



DOLLTVER. HRYBURN. 



217 



The business of manufacturing um- 
brellas is very widely scattered all 
over the country, and the necessity for 
using them is practically universal, yet 
I notice that the reduction made by 
the House upon ribs and stretchers 
seems to have been rejected by the 
Senate, and the tubes which are now 
dutiable under paragraph 152 of the 
Ding-ley act at 35 per cent are put in 
with the ribs and stretchers and are 
assessed at 50 per cent. I should like 
to know the reason for it. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Penrose] Is familiar 
with this industry and can explain It 
to the Senator. 

Mr. PENROSE. Mr. President, I un- 
derstand that 35 per cent is the Ding- 
ley rate. These frames [exhibiting] 
are sold to the trade, the small frames 
for about 8 cents and the others for a 
little over 11 cents. It appeared when 
the Dingley bill was drafted that a 
large part of umbrella frames was 
of wood; now they are made almost 
entirely of metal — the shank and every 

part of them, and these tubes 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Under the Dingley 
law, if my recollection serves me 
aright, the duty on that metallic tube 
was 35 per cent. 

Mr. PENROSE. Yes; I understand 
that; but the shank was of wood when 
the Dingley law was framed. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I do not recall 
whether it was that way or not. 

Mr. PENROSE. The metal shanks 
are used very largely now in the um- 
brella business. 

Mr. President, German manufactur- 
ers are now making quotations to cus- 
tomers for these umbrella tubes — that 
is, to the umbrella manufacturers, the 
people who cover them with silk or 
cotton or whatever may be the cover — 
and there is hardly any margin, what- 
ever in this business. I am informed 
that there is no complaint on the price 
at which they get these frames. There 
are some 15 concerns in New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, and New York which 
make the frames. I am further in- 
formed — and I believe it is correct — 
that the Japanese are beginning to 
make these frames, and with the low 
labor cost in Japan are becoming a 
serious menace. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. And yet I see 
that even under the Dingley rate of 
35 per cent there was last year only 



$17,553 of Importations, which would 
not indicate that the domestic concerns 
are in any grave danger of extinction 
from the foreigner, if that is correct. 

Mr. PENROSE. The domestic manu- 
facturers are in such grave danger 
that I venture the prediction, without 
fear of contradiction, that unless the 
duty is allowed by the Senate at this 
rate, every one of them will be driven 
out of business. 



Tariff on Antimony. 

From the Congressional Record of May i8, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
Mr. President, I do not desire to leave 
the question just where It is. I had 
hoped that the committee would give 
us at least 2 cents a pound. We have 
partially developed enough undevel- 
oped antimony mines in Idaho to pro- 
duce more than we import. Several 
times they have just reached the con- 
dition where they could work at a 
profit, but they have been compelled 
to close down under just the circum- 
stances stated by the Senator from 
Montana. One of those mines at least, 
which is in the very camp in which I 
live, is in such a condition to-day that 
could the prices be maintained it would 
be a steady producer of antimony. The 
deposit, in the nature of a ledge, is 
very large and it is a very high grade. 
They have erected the plant and they 
have spent a great deal of money, but 
they have been compelled to close 
down. 

There is a great deal in the sugges- 
tion that this Government Is at the 
mercy of the foreign market, for 
which we must pay. We could not 
compete in time of war; we would not 
be able to match, so to speak, the am- 
munition and the necessary equipment 
of other countries. They would have 
it and we would not have it. We 
would have to use some substitute for 
it, and there is no substitute for it 
known in the world. 

I had hoped that the committee 
would make the rate 2 cents instead 
of 1 cent. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The committee gave 
quite a great deal of attention to this 
subject. They are very anxious to 
have antimony produced in the United 
States. Thej' believed that the rate 



218 



DANIEL. BRANDEGEE. ALDRICH. 



suggested was suflficient to re-estab- 
lish the industry here, and I still think 
so. If the Senate agrees to this prop- 
osition, and then the committee find 
later that an additional duty will be 
required, they will report that fact to 
the Senate, 



Democratic Plea for Tariff on Que"- 
bracho. 

From the Congressional Record of May 20, 
1909. 

JOHN W. DANIEL, of Virginia. Mr. 
President, in the view which I shall 
advocate, the proposition of the pend- 
ing act, that is seven-eighths of 1 cent 
per pound, is a correct, scientific and 
useful rate of duty for the Tariff on 
the solid tanning extract known as 
"quebracho," with a half cent on tho 
liquid extract of the same essence. I 
shall therefore oppose the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin 
to reduce the rate fixed by the commit- 
tee amendment from half a cent a pound 
to a quarter of a cent a pound; and I 
shall also oppose the committee amend- 
ment to the Payne bill regarding both 
amendments as bases of the perpetua- 
tion of an error. 

Quite a history hangs around this 
provision in the bill, and I shall en- 
deavor to state the different stages 
that this matter has been through. 

It is not for an increase of the Tariff 
that I am asking. It is for an equal- 
ization of Tariff or its approximate. 
If the proposition as the Payne com- 
mittee had it is effected, there will be 
a reduction of the Dingley Tariff by 
61^ per cent and the better service, as 
I think, of all American interests in- 
volved. 

In the second place. Instead of de- 
stroying or mutilating our American 
industries, those who are making 
chestnut-oak extracts will preserve a 
competitive relation between foreign 
and domestic manufacturers, a situa- 
tion evidently in the interest of the 
people and greatly commended by 
political economists. 

In the next place, Mr. President, I 
think it will preserve the existing 
revenue from foreign importations and 
In likelihood increase it, for the need 
of the quebracho extract is growing 
dally, and at a reasonable rate, which 
does not prohibit it, I think. It Is 



sure to find a constantly enlarging 
market in this country. 

And, in the next place, which can 
not be an indifferent consideration, it 
will steady and assure the employment 
of many American laborers, instead of 
scattering them away from broken- 
down American establishments. 

It will give to the American manu- 
facturers what they have not now on 
account of the Dingley act — a fighting 
chance. Such, it is believed, will be 
the result of the proposed amendment 
of the law. 

Mr. BRANDEGEE, of Connecticut. I 
have no sympathy with the plea so 
often set up by the tanners as to what 
they will do if they are given all their 
raw materials free. I believe that 
every producer of any article of import 
in this country is deserving of Protec- 
tion, and I for one will never vote to 
take the duty off of any product for 
the purpose of giving somebody raw 
material free as long as he maintains 
and asks a duty upon his manufactured 
product. 

Mr. DANIEL. I beg leave to call the 
attention of tlie Senator from Massa- 
chusetts and my colleague to the fact, 
which has not been mentioned, but 
which appears conspicuously all 
through these papers and hearings; 
that is to say, the tanners, in their 
petitions here, have been actuated by 
the foreign quebracho-extract men to 
appeal to Congress to do what the que- 
bracho men want. It was not upon 
the initiative of the tanners, but they 
are being used by other people respect- 
ing a collateral Tariff. 

Tariff on Cotton Seed Oil. 

From the Congressional Record of May so, 
190Q. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH. of Rhode 
Island. I think the suggestions in re- 
gard to the maximum and minimum 
rates will be absolutely eflficacious in 
doing away with all the suggestions 
made by the Senator from Georgia in 
the direction he has named. 

One word more about cotton-seed oil. 
The Senator from Georgia is as well 
aware as I am that in East Africa, 
in Egypt, and everywhere else through- 
out the world, where there is any pos- 
sibility of raising cotton, all the gov- 
ernments and everybody interested in 



ALDRICH. SMOOT. MONEY. TILLMAN. HEYBURN. 



:i9 



the prosperity of those countries are 
trying their best to raise some kind 
of cotton and some variety of cotton 
that may be sent to the United States. 
I suppose the Senators are aware that 
we imported, in the year 1907, 95,000,- 
000 pounds of Egyptian cotton, for 
which we paid practically 20 cents a 
pound. 

Mr. SMOOT. The facts are these: 
In Austria at the present time they 
allow cotton seed to come in free, but 
they Impose a duty upon the oil of 27 
cents. The same is true in Germany — 
not the same amount, the same prin- 
ciple. Under those conditions, they 
say. cotton seed going into Germany 
and into Austria is manufactured into 
oil. and the seed coming from South 
America. Egypt, and India at a very 
small freight rate, they can manufac- 
ture in those countries now, with free 
seed, cotton-seed oil. and if there is 
no duty they can ship to the border 
States of America cheaper than the 
product can be produced here. It is 
for that reason that I have supported 
the duty of 3 cents per gallon. 

Mr. TILLMAN. Cheaper than it can 
be produced in the South, with negro 
labor at 50 and 75 cents a day? Who- 
ever told the Senator that lied to him, 
and he knew he was 13'ing — and I do 
not care who he is. 

Mr. SMOOT. There are many coun- 
tries which have cheaper labor than 
50 cents a day. I think you could go 
to Germany to-day and find that the 
men working in those mills producing 
oil are not receiving an average of 50 
cents a day. 



Great Britain Levies a Protective 
Duty on Beer. 

From the Congressional Record of May 20, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. Is the Senator from Missis- 
sippi aware that, in the treatment of 
beer, for instance. Great Britain levies 
a Protective duty upon beer? 

Mr. MONEY. I was not. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senatyr had 
better examine that question. 

Mr. MONEY. I will take the Sena- 
tor's word for it that they do have 
Protection on beer; fLn(| I suppose that 



there is something peculiarly favor- 
able to beer, or they would not im- 
pose such a duty, because the English 
really consume more beer than any 
other people in the world. They con- 
sume more than the Germans do. 

Mr. ALDRICH. They impose an in- 
ternal tax on beer, and they have a 
duty on beer which is much greater, 
and which is prohibitory as to foreign 
beer. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
Mr. President, we have listened to 
much about trusts and about the adul- 
teration of white lead. It has nothing 
whatever to do with the question of a 
proper duty upon white lead. The 
question here is whether we must Pro- 
tect our white-lead industries in this 
country against importations and the 
competition of white lead in other 
countries. We produce in the United 
States only about one-third of the lead 
in the world. We have two-thirds out 
against us. It is ultimately all re- 
duced to bullion. When it is in the 
shape of bullion or white lead, as it 
may be, base or otherwise, it can be 
corroded into white lead. White lead 
is a very large item of commerce. 

We produce in this country of white 
lead $14,669,591 worth. That is repre- 
sented in part by raw material and in 
part by the machinery and the plant 
requisite to convert it and partly by 
wages. It embraces those three items. 
They all represent the investment of 
American capital or American labor. 
They are practically the same in my 
judgment. 

We have already, at least tentatively, 
Protected the American lead producer 
against the competition across the 
Canadian line in regard to the basis 
of white lead. Now, under what rule 
of consistency would you leave the 
door open to the product and close it 
against the raw material? We have 
the raw material in this country for 
the purpose of conversion into the con- 
dition of use. What inducement would 
there be to convert our raw material 
of lead into white lead for consump- 
tion on this side if the lead could come 
over from Canada or IMexico free, or 
comparatively free, or at a less rate 
than would represent the difference in 
the conditions of production and trans- 
portation? What object would there 
be? 



220 



HEYBURN. NELSON. 



The Trust Bogey. 

Mr. President, I have long- since 
ceased to be appalled by the threat 
of a trust In every case. We are not 
bothered with the trusts, nor is the 
farmer bothered with the trusts in 
this matter. The only time he ever 
thinks of them Is when, during a po- 
litical campaign or some lecture tour, 
his attention is called to the fact that 
he is being hurt. He never knew it. 
He simply gets his first notice and 
first advice, and probably feels his 
first imaginary pains, through the elo- 
quence and oratory of those who must 
have an issue, those who must have 
some startling sensation to spring 
upon the people. I have not been in 
this body as long as some, but I have 
been here some time, and I have never 
met these hobgoblins face to face. I 
have read descriptions of them, and I 
have heard the terrible things that 
they would do; but I have not seen 
American industry paralyzed; I have 
not seen farms deserted, machinery 
stilled, and the mines silent because 
of the trusts. Those men do not care 
who pays them their wages; they do 
not care who buys their product; and 
the farmer does not care. I see they 
are now 

Farmers Are a Thinking People. 

Mr. President, I am very glad to 
have such an account of the farmers 
of Minnesota. I know something about 
the conditions of the farmers of Idaho. 
They are a thinking people, and they 
do not believe every foolish story that 
is told them. They are intellig'ent 
enough to sift the stories down and 
determine the truth that lies under 
them; and that is that a man alone in 
the world would mean nothing in the 
way of prosperity, but that it is the 
bringing togethor of men and the 
weapons with which men fight in this 
world that makes business and makes 
markets and makes opportunities; and 
that is what our people want. They 
only want the opportunity to pursue 
their industries and their enterprises. 
They ask nothing more; they will take 
care of the rest. And that is the only 
duty that the Government owes to 
the people — opportunity. It owes no 
man anything directly from the Gov- 
ernment to the man. Under our sys- 
tem of government, the best and only 



good government Is that which gives 
the people an opportunity, each accord- 
ing to his own worth. 

Dismal Prophecies of Progressives. 

I have heard It prophesied that if 
the policy of the Republican party was 
adopted, if the Government of this 
country was intrusted to it, men would 
be homeless and poverty stricken; that 
the land would fiow with blood, and an- 
archy would be rampant; and that the 
laborers would be out of employment. 
I heard it all in 1896, when that con- 
dition, in a measure, did exist, and I 
saw the Republican party come into 
power and apply the principles of Pro- 
tection, for which we stand In this 
hour, and 

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President 

Mr. HEYBURN. Just a moment. 
(Continuing.) I saw the records of 
the counties in every State cleared of 
the mortgages: I saw the borrower be- 
come the lender; I saw the idle man 
industrious at profitable' occupation; I 
saw that building which had become 
racked with the blight of Free-Trade 
painted with the "white lead" of Re- 
publican prosperity, with a higher duty 
on it than we are proposing to put 
upon it to-day. [Laughter.] 

Mr. NELSON. Was not that in the 
good old days, when, instead of a duty 
on lead, you forced us to buy silver 
at the rate of 4,500,000 ounces a month, 
whether we wanted it or not? 

Mr. HEYBURN. Gracious alive! 
That silver ghost has arisen In the 
Senate of the United States again. 
[Laughter.] I will allow it to take 
care of itself. I am not going to be 
led off into a discussion of the silver 
question. I never followed the silver 
god out of the Republican party. 

Mr. NELSON. But you are follow- 
ing the lead god. [Laughter]. 

Noi Following It Out of the Republican 
Party. 

Mr. HEYBURN. Why does not the 
Senator finish his speech? I was wait- 
ing for the Senator to finish. I am 
not following it out of the Republican 
party, and I am not going to follow 
different gods of any kind out of the 
Republican party and in the Interest 
of anytliing in this country. 1 am not 
going to abandon the principle of Pro- 



HEYBURN. PENROSE. 



221 



tection for which the Republican party 
stands. 

Mr. President, no one need under- 
take to rob the Republican party of 
the glory of its achievements under 
the banner of Protection. Never was 
the hour so dark or the country so 
desolate that the Protective-Tariff pol- 
icy of the Republican party has not 
lifted.it up into the sunshine of pros- 
perity. 

The existing duty on w^hite lead is 
higher than we are proposing to make 
it. Are the farmers of this country 
suffering because of it? Are their 
buildirgs lacking in paint and polish 
because of it? I think not. I remern- 
ber coming down through the great 
valleys of the West just before the 
Republican party enacted the Dingley 
Tariff bill — in fact, before the election 
— and remarking how badly the coun- 
try needed painting. I remember com- 
ing down again shortly afterwards 
and admiring the work of the painter. 
[Laughter.] The farmer inust have 
something to buy paint with. If he 
has nothing to buy it with, he will 
not buy It; it does not matter what 
the price is. And if he has prosperity, 
he will buy it, regardless of the price. 

Farmers Are Now Money Loaners. 

The farmers of this country are to- 
day the money loaners of this country. 
They are the capitalists of this coun- 
try. With wheat at the price quoted 
to-day and with every other product 
^of the farm at the price it now brings, 
they are not complaining. A banker 
in a neighboring State told me re- 
cently that his institution was main- 
taining its magnificent palace for the 
purpose of guarding the money of the 
farmers; that if a man wanted to bor- 
row money, he did not come to the 
bank but went to the farmer, and all 
they ever knew of it was through the 
check of the farmer coming in to make 
the loan. 

That is the condition out in our 
country. The farmers there have 
grown prosperous because of the great 
mining industries that make a market 
that pays the farmer twenty millions 
a year or more for his supplies, for 
which he would have a very much de- 
creased market in the absence of those 
industries. 

Of course, in the case of any of 



these schedules, you can by assum- 
ing false premises arrive at the con- 
clusion that the country is crying out 
for relief. From what does this coun- 
try to-day want relief? The people 
are not needing or demanding It. All 
they desire is that this question shall 
be settled, and that its settlement shall 
leave no threatened disturbance behind 
it; that its settlement shall be such as 
to give no man or set of men the 
power to change it. 

The great value of the law, as was 
said by the great commentator, lies 
in its unchangeable and fixed charac- 
ter. The law that contains any ele- 
ment of a promised change is a dan- 
gerous law. People will not attempt 
to adjust themselves to it until they 
know that it has passed beyond the 
possibility of change by the people. 

Adds 25 Cents to the Cost of Painting 
a Farm House. 

Mr. PENROSE. Mr. President, as an 
ilustration of the elevated character of 
the statesmanship which has delayed 
the business of the Senate for half a 
day, I desire to call the attention of 
the Senate very briefly to the follow- 
ing figures, which I have had carefully 
compiled, and which can not be contra- 
dicted: 

In the case of ready-mixed paints, 
which are the paints usually used by 
the oppressed farmer to decorate his 
premises, 10 gallons are required to 
paint a farm house or cottage of from 
6 to 10 rooms. In that 10 gallons of 
mixed paint there are 43 pounds of 
metallic lead, equal to 54 pounds of dry 
white lead. The House rate on 52 
pounds of white lead, at 2 3-8 cents per 
pound, amounts to a little over $1.23 
in painting a house of from 4 to 5 
rooms. The Senate rate on 52 pounds 
of white lead, at 2 7-8 cents, which is 
the difference in controversy to-day, 
equals a little over $1.49. This makes 
the issue in altercation before the Sen- 
ate of the United States, and the issue 
apparently delaying the public busi- 
ness and causing a loss of millions of 
dollars every day to the American 
producer, the sum of 25 cents in paint- 
ing a farm house. [Laughter] 

Protection Offers tfie Opportunity. 
Mr. HEYBURN. In something more 
than six years I have been a member 



HEYBURN. (lAMBLE. GALLINGER. BURTON. 



of this body I have on several occa- 
sions made a statement like this: I 
believe that the principle of Protection 
fosters individual prosperity, that it 
enables the individual to engage in 
business for himself on a safer and 
better and more profitable basis. I 
believe in Individual enterprise. I be- 
lieve that the larger the per cent of 
men engaged in any occupation on 
their own account the higher the grade 
of civilization. I think that one of the 
elements that tends to degrade men is 
that pay-window stoop that they get. 
When they go up to get an assured 
certainty it takes just a little from 
their dignity. The man who works for 
himself or who is engaged in business 
for himself steps a little higher, a lit- 
tle firmer, than the man who is en- 
gaged or occupied at the privilege of 
another. 

That is the way I look at It. It Is 
because I believe this and because 1 
believe that Protection offers the op- 
portunity for men to engage in busi- 
ness for themselves that I am a Pro- 
tectionist. 



Tariff on Mica. 

From the Congressional Record of May 21, 
1909. 
ROBERT J. GAMBLE, of South Da- 
kota. Mr. President, I am addressing 
myself briefly to paragraph 89. I re- 
peat, this industry is largely in process 
of development. The product is essen- 
tial to the development and to the 
uses of many industries, and should 
receive the Protection and encourage- 
ment. There are inexhaustible mines 
of this product in South Dakota, where 
last year one-third of the mica in the 
United States was produced. A large 
plant in the western part of the State 
has been successfully operated for the 
past two years. I am informed anoth- 
er of equal capacity is being installed 
and will be in operation within the 
next sixty days. I am assured from 
the extensive and rich supply in that 
region, with both plants In operation, 
'they will be able to produce a sufficipnt 
supply for all the electrical uses of 
the entire country. The production of 
mica is largely in competition with the 
cheapest labor in the world. The larg- 
est importations for 1908, as shown by 



the statistics of the Government, were 
from India. 

The comparative rate of wages be- 
tween India and this country has been 
frequently given during this debate. 
The rate there is only a few cents per 
day, and is only a fraction of the rate 
of wages paid in this country. The 
information furnished us by the Fi- 
nance Committee is that mica from 
India can be mined and landed tn this 
country at a price lower than the cost 
of production at some of the mines in 
the United States. 

It seems to me, Mr. President, the 
rate of the present law should be re- 
tained. 

Not Controlled by a Trust. 

Mr. GALIJNGER. Mr. President, the 
Senator from Rhode I.«land is undoubt- 
edly incorrect, or he is the victim of 
misrepresentation, when he imagines 
that mica is controlled by a trust. It 
is not. We have independent compa- 
nies operating in the little State of 
New Hampshire and doing considerable 
business. 

The Senator asked about the wages 
in India as compared with the wages 
In this country. I understand that 
they get 8 or 10 cents a day in India, 
and we pay considerably more than 
that in the United States. 



Necessity for a Tariff on Carbons. 

From the Congressional Record of May 21, 
IQ09. 
THEODORE E. BURTON, of Ohio. 
Prior to 1897 no carbon was known' 
with a greater length than 12 inches. 
The understanding of the trade in- 
cluded two kinds of carbons; one a tri- 
fle less than 12 inches and one about 7 
inches in length, with some interme- 
diate lengths. The Dingley law, so 
called, provided for this rate of duty: 

Carbons for electric lighting 90 cents 
per hundred. 

Under any rational interpretation of 
tliat expression, it would mean a car- 
bon less than a foot in length, for 
among the millions which have been 
burned in this country, not one at that 
time was in general use of a greater 
longth tlian 1 foot. It was a staple 
article of commerce. 

For reasons which it is unnecessary 
to explain — indeed, I do not quite un- 
d( I stand tliem myself — after the ap- 



feURTON. 



223 



praiser had decided that this meant a 
carbon stick less than a foot in length, 
and after the Treasury Department, in 
a letter of October 28, 1897, had direct- 
ed the collector of customs at New- 
York City to interpret this provision 
as meaning a carbon less than a foot 
in length, it was nevertheless decided 
that they might be imported, under 
the payment of this duty, in sizes of 
a greater length. It is not necessary 
to use names. Names do not after all 
have very great significance. I will 
not say this was a fraud, but it was at 
least a bald and palpable evasion 
w^hich the Finance Committee in its 
recommendation to the Senate sought 
to correct, and they should have 
sought to correct it. 

Increase of Domestic Production. 

Now, as regards the rate of duty in 
the bill, I want to make just a few 
remarks. The rate under the Wilson 
bill was 30 per cent. Under that rate 
domestic manufacturers made about 10 
per cent of the total number of car- 
bons consumed in this country. Un- 
der the first and natural interpreta- 
tion of the provision of the Dingley 
law, that it means carbons a foot in 
length or less, by 1903, 70 per cent of 
the carbons used in this country were 
made by domestic producers. Then, 
under the custom of bringing them in 
sizes of 2 feet or more in length, the 
domestic production gradually dropped 
in proportion, and it is now about 50 
per cent. 

There has been a very vigorous 
newspaper campaign instigated by the 
importers of this article. I know of 
none advocating any contention on any 
particular schedule who have taken 
the newspapers into their confidence 
more than the importers of this article, 
and but for that I think we should 
look at this paragraph dispassionately, 
with very little question as to the judi- 
cious thing to do. 

There is ample opportunity under the 
65-cent rate of duty to bring in these 
carbons and make a profit. The claim 
of the importers has been that they 
could be manufactured abroad and 
landed at New York City for 95 cents 
per hundred feet, each stick 1 foot in 
length. Add 65 cents to that, and that 
w^ould make $1.60. Under the paj'ment 
of a duty of 45 cents, they could bring 



them in for approximately $1.40. They 
have been selling them for $2.30, real- 
izing a profit of the difference between 
$1.40 and $2.30 on the sales that they 
have been making. 

Prices Reduced by Domestic Competition. 

I want to call attention to the effect 
of the domestic reduction on prices. 
In 1897, when the Dingley act was 
passed, the price of these carbons was 
$27.25 per thousand; in 1908 it was a 
little less than $23 per thousand, show- 
ing a reduction of about 15 per cent. 
I want to say to the Senate that if 
I thought the adoption of this amend- 
ment would raise the price of those 
carbons I would not vote for it, al- 
though it is a local industry. 

I believe the omission to provide a 
remedy for this evasion would be 
more likely to cause an increase of 
price than would a local monopoly; 
and I must confess that, if there is to 
be a monopoly anywhere, much as I 
w^ould deprecate it, I should very much 
prefer that it should be in my home 
city than to have it exist in some for- 
eign land. 

I understand there is no monopoly 
in this industry. I understand $20,000 
or less will provide any existing car- 
bon plant, of which there are many 
competitive concerns, for the manufac- 
ture of high-grade carbons. 

I have never heard in the city of 
Cleveland the slightest intimation that 
the Standard Oil Company had any- 
thing to do with the National Carbon 
Company. Its list of stockholders is 
entirely distinct and is scattered over 
the country. If anyone made that 
statement in Cleveland, it would be 
supposed that it was the product of a 
diseased imagination or some muck- 
raking attack upon those who are en- 
gaged in legitimate business. I have 
never heard it termed a "trust." 

For a Fair and Judicious Tariff. 

I am not here with any brief for the 
National Carbon Company; I am here, 
in the first instance, for a local indus- 
try, and for a fair and a judicious 
Tariff. Is every organization which is 
prosperous to be placed in the pillory, 
as this has been to-day? Is it to be 
subjected to false accusations and to 
groundless suspicion? Certainly, if this 
had been done in the past, our coun- 



224 



BURTON. ALDRICH. 



try would be much nearer to the con- 
dition when the tomahawk was prev- 
alent and the prairies were unsettled. 
Must you pounce on any corporation 
or any man simply because he is suc- 
cessful? I do not know whether there 
was any "water," as you call it, added 
to the stock of the National Carbon 
Company; but I do know that its suc- 
cess is due largely to twenty years of 
excellent business endeavor. 

As I stated before, when the Dingley 
bill was passed, in 1897, 10 per cent 
of the carbons used in this country 
were made at home, and 90 per cent 
of them were imported. Under the 
first interpretation placed upon the law 
• — which, I submit to the Senate, was 
the honest interpretation — interpreting 
It to mean a carbon stick a little less 
than a foot long, the domestic produc- 
tion grew to 70 per cent in the six 
years from 1897 to 1903. Then com- 
menced this importation of double and 
triple lengths. Since that time the 
home production has gradually gone 
down, until now, instead of being 70 
per cent as in 1903, it is 50 per cent 
or less of the total consumption. In 
the year 1907 there were imported 
something like 8,000,000 of these car- 
bon sticks, no doubt of an average 
length of more than 2 feet each, 
amounting to about 20,000,000 sticks 
of commercial length or something 
more than half of the domestic con- 
sumption. This gradual increase of 
importation and the gradual falling 
off of home production — and it was 
not so gradual, after all — show the 
danger to this as a domestic industry. 

Protectionists Must Meet the Question. 

"We who are Protectionists in this 
Chamber must meet this question: Are 
you willing that there shall be a fair 
and rational interpretation of the law 
of 1897 as it was intended, or do you 
intend to allow this duty to be so de- 
creased that the manufacture of this 
article will pass from this country to 
another country? 

It does not answer that question to 
fill the air with denunciations of 
trusts and monopolies. There is not 
any monopoly there. 

I have already read to the Senate a 
letter from a manufacturer in the 
State of Illinois, in which he says that 
in July or August his factory will be 



ready to put these carbons on the mar- 
ket. Any other carbon company that 
has the requisite skill and ability and 
the very small capital necessary can 
manufacture them as well. 

We can not obscure this Issue. The 
amount of importation in proportion 
to the total consumption is increasing 
year by year and month by month. 

I am perfectly aware that there has 
been a campaign made in this case by 
the agents of the importers which has 
involved more publicity and more reck- 
lessness of accusation than perhaps in 
relation to any other item or para- 
graph in this bill. But I appeal to 
the Senate to stand by an American 
industry and give it fair play, and to 
rectify that which, to say the least, 
has been an error, if not a fraud. In 
the interpretation of the act of 1897. 

Mr. President, I trust the committee 
amendment will prevail. 



Tariff on Automobiles. 

From the Congressional Record of May Zl. 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. Mr. President, in answer to 
the question of the Senator from 
Texas — which, of course, is a serious 
question — as to what rate would bring 
the most revenue, I have no question 
whatever that within a very few years 
the great ma.ss of the automobiles that 
are used in this country will be made 
here. There can be no question about 
that. I think the American automo- 
biles to-day are the best in the world; 
but there are now, and will be for 
some time to come, a great many peo- 
ple, undoubtedly, who will buy some 
fancy makes of French or German au- 
tomobiles. I am inclined to think that 
if we make the rate any higher we 
would in the end get less revenue. 

Mr. TILLMAN. And we would not 
get rid of automobiles. 

Mr. ALDRICH. And we would not 
get rid of automobiles, because they 
are here to stay. 

Mr. TILLMAN. They are bound to 
stay. 

Mr. ALDRICH. No duty that we can 
impose upon them would exclude them 
from use. So the committee thought 
probably 45 per cent would be the best 
rate we could use for revenue. 

Mr. BULKELEY. We are not accus- 



ALDRirn. (T.AY. ('LAPP. FOSTER. 



tomed in this body to give the infor- 
mation from parties interested in these 
matters of Tariff a great deal of 
weight, but I should like to read a few 
words from a letter from a gentleman 
representing the manufacturers of bi- 
cycles, automobiles, and motor cycles, 
in which he says: 

"The changes and insertion asked 
for are not important enough " 

Neither the provision as presented 
by the House nor by the Senate — 

in the opinion of our automobile and 
bicvcle manufacturers, to delay the 
harmonious passage of the paragraph; 
and I have the authority from H. B. 
Joy (Packard Motor Car Company), 
chairman of the automobile manufac- 
turers' Tariff committee, and Col. 
George Pope (Pope Manufacturing 
Company), chairman of the bicycle 
manufacturers' Tariff committee, to 
state that paragraph 140, either as it 
appears in the House or Senate bills, 
is acceptable to our manufacturers, 
and that we do not object to the omis- 
sion of the word "finished" — 

Or its Insertion; but, like all our 
other people in Connecticut who are 
Interested in this as they are in other 
industries of the country, they ask for 
a speedy passage of this whole meas- 
ure. 



That "Truly Reciprocal" Treaty 
with Cuba. 

From the Congressional Record of May 22, 
1909. 

ALEXANDER S. CLAY, of Georgia. 
The sugar trust now controls and 
owns a majority of the stock in the 
sugar-beet factories of this country — 
that is, about 51 per cent of the stock. 
When the Dingley Act was passed, 
nearly all of the raw sugar we used 
came from foreign countries 

Mr. FOSTER. I do not want to in- 
terrupt the Senator, but he is stating a 
historical fact now as to the reduction 
of the Tariff on sugar by congressional 
action in so far as Cuba is concerned. 
I should like to ask him whether every 
sugar producer in this country, beet 
and cane, did not violently protest 
against this action of Congress, and 
did not the Senator from Georgia vote 
for that treaty? 

Mr. CLAY. I voted in favor of the 
reciprocity treaty with Cuba. I be- 
lieved that sugar would come into 
this country cheaper. I believed 
that the people of Cuba would 



probably get a little more for their 
sugar. I found that I was mistaken: 
that the trust, white buying its raw 
sugar cheaper, continued to sell its re- 
fined product to the American people 
at the same price. 

Mr. CLAPP. I think, in describing 
the reciprocity treaty with Cuba, the 
Senator omitted a very important fact. 
It was one of the most truly reciprocal 
arrangements I ever knew of, because 
the rate of duty which we took out 
of sugar just about corresponded with 
the advance in price of the stock of 
the American Sugar Refining Company. 
It was truly reciprocal. 

Mr. CLAY. Will the Senator repeat 
that? I did not catch it. 

Mr. CLAPP. I say, in discussing the 
Cuban reciprocity treaty, when any 
schoolboy ought to have seen that the 
only purchaser of raw sugar was the 
trust, and that" reducing the duty on 
raw sugar would not benefit the Amer- 
ican consumer, nevertheless we adopt- 
ed that plan of reciprocity; and I 
say it was truly reciprocal, because 
the proportion of points we reduced 
the duty just about corresponded to 
the increase of points in the stock 
market of the stock of the American 
Sugar Refining Company. 

Mr. CLAY. I quite indorse the 
speech of the Senator from Minnesota. 
There is no contention between us in 
the least on that point. 

Sugar from ffie Ptiilippines. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I was very 
much interested in the statement of 
the Senator from Georgia as to the 
productive sugar capacity of the Phil- 
ippine Islands. As I understood him, 
upon some one's information he as- 
serted that there was a possibility of 
producing 1,000,000,000 tons of sugar in 
the Philippine Islands. 

Mr. CLAY. I do not know it myself. 
I have been informed that in five years 
that country could bring into this 
country at least 300,000,000 tons of 
sugar annually. 

Mr. SIMITH. Does the Senator from 
Georgia believe that it is good policy 
to develop the sugar industry in the 
Philippine Islands to that extent? 

Mr. CLAY. I certainly would not 
be in favor of admitting free sugar 
from the Philippine Islands into the 
L^nited States at all if you are going 



226 



CLAY. BORAH. SCOTT. 



to allow the present Tariff duty to 
stand on refined sugar. I am not in 
favor of free sugar. 



Protection Must Be a System to In- 
clude the Whole Country. 

From the Congressional Record of May 22, 
1909. 
WILLIAM E. BORAH, of Idaho. I 
believe that Protection, if it is a^ny- 
thing- at all, is a system. If it is to 
he confined to this or that particular 
schedule, it is a privilege, and a privi- 
lege is always wrong and can never he 
justified. Unless we discuss the Pro- 
tective policy upon the theory that it 
is a system which builds up all the in- 
dustries of the United States and di- 
versifies those industries and gives op- 
portunity for labor to be employed in 
all of the different industries, it can 
not be justified at all. There is no 
argument in the world by which you 
can justify the building up of one in- 
^dustry under the policy of Protection. 
*It must be a system to include the 
whole country, or it is not justified 
upon any theory whatever. 



Most Earnest Advocates of Protec- 
tion Will Come from the Southern 
States. 

From the Congressional Record of May 22, 
1909. 
NATHAN B. SCOTT, of West Vir- 
ginia. In the dark days of the civil 
war, w^hen a certain portion of the 
country was trying to make it appear 
that the war was a failure, when that 
great and good man, one of the great- 
est, I think, that the world has ever 
produced. President Lincoln, was al- 
most ready to throw up his hands in 
despair, when gold was at a great 
premium, when an election was to be 
held in the fall, it was thought in all 
probability that the next Congress of 
the United States would be Democratic 
and that the policy of the country and 
the policy of President Lincoln would 
not be upheld for the lack of means 
to support the army, that it was the 
border Southern States which came to 
the rescue and upheld the hands of 
President Lincoln and made it possible 
for him to carry that war to a success- 
ful termination. Notwithstanding that 



many of the great Republican Stated 
like Massachusetts, New York, and 
Pennsylvania failed to elect a united 
Republican delegation then, the States 
of Delaware and Maryland, the States 
of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Mis- 
souri sent enough Republican Members 
to Congress in that election to save 
this country from the disgrace of hav- 
ing to ask the soldiers of the Republic 
who were offering up their lives to go 
without their pay and of having the 
war declared a failure. 

Protection for the Entire South. 

Mr. President, we of the border 
States ask for nothing more than w^e 
are willing to give to any other State 
in this Union. I am willing to vote 
for a Tariff that is fair and right to 
every section of the country, w^hether 
we produce any of the articles in my 
State or in the Southland. The South- 
ern people are not selfish; they are a 
generous people; they are warm- 
hearted; and they only ask for them- 
selves what they are willing to give 
to others. I hope when it comes to 
lumber, coal, and oil, and when it 
comes to other articles for which we 
are asking only a fair Protection in 
the great bill that is before the Senate, 
the South, not particularly West Vir- 
ginia, but the entire South, will be 
taken care of; and I predict, as I did 
a few days ago, that the time is not 
far distant when the greatest Protec- 
tionists, the most earnest advocates of 
the principle of Protection, will come 
from the so-called "Southern States." 
I ask in fairness and candor, and, as I 
stated before, on the same line that we 
are willing to give to others, to the 
farmer, and to the mechanic, and to 
the laborer, that the same measure 
may be meted out to us. 

Tariff on Brier Wood. 

While I have the floor, I wish to call 
the attention of the Senate to the fact 
that brier wood, laurel, and such like 
woods were put on the free list by the 
Senate committee. In the House there 
was a duty of 25 per cent -placed on 
these woods. If the committee will re- 
store to the present bill the 25 per 
cent rate that was In the House bill, 
we can go on in this country and 
make pipes. We have the wood and 
the laurel root growing along the en- 



SCOTT. HEYBURN. McCUMBER. 



227 



tire length of the Allegheny Moun- 
tains. But. owing to the competition 
of cheap German labor, that industry- 
has virtually gone out of existence. 
This [exhibiting] is a sample of the 
laurel root that is grown all along the 
Allegheny Mountains. If the commit- 
tee will restore the rate the House 
gave us, 25 per cent, we can build up 
in this country a great industry in 
making the so-called "brier-root" or 
"laurel-root" pipes. This [exhibiting] 
is an imported pipe, made from the 
wood of Italy or some other foreign 
country, and I hold in my other hand 
[exhibiting] a pipe made out of laurel 
root and laurel wood in this countrJ^ 
Of course the wood of these pipes is 
stained. We can make just as good 
pipes here, and it will build up an 
industry that will give employment to 
hundreds and thousands of men. Cer- 
tainly that is in the line of the policy 
of Protection. When the pending 
amendment is out of the road. I shall 
offer an amendment to restore the rate 
fixed by the House. 



The First Act Passed by the First 
Congress Was a Protective Tariff 
Bill. 

From the Congressional Record of May 22, 
1909. 
WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. I 
am not going to wander off into the 
field of history or reminiscence, ex- 
cept only to ask j'ou to bear in mind 
that the best evidence of the intention 
of men who act in an assembly Is to be 
gathered from the acts of the men 
when the assembly is broken up. The 
Constitutional Convention, in making 
the Constitution, provided for the 
legislative branch of the Government 
and gave it its powers. What was the 
first thing that they did? The pre- 
sumption is that the first thing they 
did was the thing of first necessity, in 
their judgment. They passed a Pro- 
tective Tariff act, and they named it 
in its title and specified in its text that 
it was for the purpose of affording 
Protection in the field of competition 
between this, then new, country, and 
the outside world. In other words, it 
for the first time spread the table for 
the American people. That bill was 
signed on the 4th of July by Presi- 
dent Washington, and it was the first 



act of the First Congress of the United 
States. 

There Is an indication of the Inten- 
tion and the purpose expressed by 
those who made the Government that 
it was bound to consider, and we can 
not disregard it. Had they told you 
otherwise at another time, you would 
have reproached them with the fact 
that we are going to take your act in 
judgment rather than your statement. 
They expressed the principle of a Pro- 
tective and discriminative Tariff In 
that bill. They did not leave it to 
doubt. They enumerated, practically 
and substantially, the same classes of 
items that we enumerate to-day. They 
enumerated the items that we are to- 
day considering with reference to their 
relation to the Tariff question, as to 
whether their production involves a 
competitive idea or whetlier it is 
something that we may treat merely 
as a revenue-producing item, or 
whether it is something that should 
come in free. 



When the Farmer Demands Protec- 
tion He Will Have It. 

From the Congressional Record of May 22, 
1909. 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North 
Dakota. I want to say, before I close, 
one word upon the Tariffs that are 
placed upon the farmer's products. If 
I can not demonstrate when we reach 
that schedule that every one of the 
products on which I have asked a 
Tariff to be levied should be levied 
upon it, then I am willing that it 
should be reduced. 

But I know something about the 
conditions of the Northwest to-day. I 
know the growing conditions of our 
Canadian border line for 2,000 miles. 
I know some of the conditions that 
will confront us before another ten 
years shall elapse, and I am going to 
guard the interests of those people 
for the next ten years. Why? Be- 
cause before the expiration of that 
time we will not be exporting one 
bushel of wheat from the United 
States. Then we will have the direct 
benefit of that Tariff. I know how we 
are going to be received on the other 
side of this question just as soon as 



228 



McCUMBER. SCOTT. ROOT. 



that condition arises. Then the cry- 
will go up over this country for free 
food. I know what the farmers, who 
have stood by you during years of 
hardship to build up your industries, 
will meet, because I have observed it 
in every other country — as in Great 
Britain, where the laborer said, "We 
demand cheaper food," and the Tariff 
went off food products. 

When we get that condition, Mr. 
President, I hope to see the farmers 
in my section as thoroughly organized 
as the labor unions are to-day; and 
if they are organized, I will tell you, 
you are going to have a pretty diffi- 
cult task in cutting down the duties 
upon breadstuffs for the benefit of any- 
body upon the face of the earth. 

Protect the Farmer and Everything He 
Produces. 

Mr. SCOTT. There is no one, I 
think, who will say that I have not 
always been willing and perfectly anx- 
ious to do the farmer justice. He is 
the hardest working man, I think, in 
the country; he labors longer hours. I 
have been there, and I know of the 
life myself. I do not know whether 
the Senator from North Dakota . ever 
labored on a farm, but I myself have. 
I want to say, Mr. President, I am in 
favor of Protecting the farmer and 
everything he produces, everything 
that grows, the same as I ain in favor 
of Protecting the man who is engaged 
In manufacturing or in any other pur- 
suit in this country. 

Mr. President, who Is suffering to- 
day? Is it the farmer? In conversa- 
tion with a hotel keeper in southern 
California, whom I have known for 
years, who runs one of the finest win- 
ter resorts in that southern climate, he 
t ">ld me that in the last two or three 
.vars he has missed the Eastern man, 
tlie manufacturer, the merchant, the 
banker, but his house has been over- 
run with the farmer, with his wife 
and his children; that they all have 
plenty of money, and his rooms were 
not too good nor his table too ex- 
pensive for any of them. I was very 
glad, indeed, to hear it. So the de- 
pressed and downtrodden farmer in 
the last few yeai's has certainly had 
an equal advantage with tliose of us 
who have been engaged in manufac- 
turing. 



Protection Needed for the Dressed 
Lumber Industry. 

Front the Congressional Record of May 24, 
1909. 

ELIHU ROOT, of New York. Mr. 
President, before the Senate disposes 
of the paragraph providing for a dif- 
ferential upon dressed lumber, I wish 
to ask that consideration be given to 
a great number of establishments and 
employees who are engaged in the 
planing and dressing of lumber along 
the American side of the water boun- 
dary between the United States and 
Canada.. Early in the history of the 
building of the dwellings for our peo- 
ple all along the pathway of emigra- 
tion to the West, there grew^ up along 
the southern borders of the Lakes a 
chain of lumber yards and lumber- 
dressing establishments to supply the 
wants of the moving and growing 
communities. When the lumbering 
camps were established in the forests 
of Michigan and Wisconsin, instead of 
establishing planing mills at the 
camps, the cheap Lake freights made 
it practicable to transport the rough 
lumber to points on the south of the 
Lakes nearer the points of distribu- 
tion and to dress the lumber at those 
points. Accordingly, these establish- 
ments grew up, and as the lumber of 
Michigan and Wisconsin decreased the 
same establishments began to include 
Canadian lumber in their work; so 
that now they are engaged in the 
dressing of rough lumber, which is 
brought from our Western forests and 
from Canadian forests, and the mill- 
ions of feet of lumber which you see 
upon the "comparative statement" as 
imported into the United States dur- 
ing the past few years go chiefly to 
these lumber-dressing establishments, 
which are taking the rough lumber 
from the forests of Canada and manu- 
facturing it into material fit and ready 
for use in building and in the various 
constructions where lumber is used. 

This interest is plainly worthy of 
the careful attention of the Senate In 
applying the rule of Protection to the 
construction of this Tariff act. I do 
not ask, Mr. President, that there shall 
be any deviation from the rule upon 
which we are framing this act In be- 
half of the lumber-dres.sing Interests 
of northern New York, but I do ask 
that for the Protection of their manu- 



ROOT. HEYBURN. 



229 



facturing Industry they have the ben- 
efit of the same rule which is applied 
to other industries in this bill. 

That is to say, I do not think there 
can be a reduction from those dif- 
ferentials which would not result in 
the transfer of a large proportion of 
our planing mills to Canada, because I 
think that those differentials are no 
greater than necessary to enable the 
American planing mills to make a fair 
profit on their product, while I think 
that an increase of those differentials 
would withdraw the corrective and re- 
straining effect of possible Canadian 
competition in case our planing mills 
should endeavor to charge too great a 
profit upon their product. 

Mr. President, may I say two things 
in response to that question? One is 
that there is not an established busi- 
ness of dressing lumber to any general 
extent with which we have to compete 
in Canada. The thing we have to fear 
is the transfer of business or the build- 
ing up of mills in Canada to supply 
our markets. The other point is that 
I am assuming the duty on rough lum- 
ber is going to be reduced by Con- 
gress, and of course that will be a re- 
duction of the Protection to dressed 
lumber as well as to rough lumber. 
The committee reports a fixed duty on 
rough lumber and a duty on dressed 
lumber, and the differential must be 
Protection, 



If the Lumber Industry Be Destroyed 
the Farmer Will Lose a Big Mar- 
ket for His Products. 

From the Congressional Record of May 24, 
1909. 
WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. I 
should like some one who stands 
sponsor for this measure to suggest 
how much of the wages paid are to 
be transferred to the Canadian mills 
and how much are to be retained, be- 
cause the merchants in this country 
and the farmers in this country have 
got to adjust their next year's busi- 
ness to the conditions that will con- 
front them, and if, instead of paying 
$120,000,000 in wages, you are only go- 
ing to pay $50,000,000, they have got 



to reduce their business and their 
stock and their hopes, and they will 
reduce their bank account. If you are 
going to run a thousand mills, instead 
of three thousand, the men who have 
the money invested In those mills will 
be interested to know if they are 
among those to be eliminated from. 
the field of active Industry. 

If you do not answer these questions 
here, you will have to answer them 
when the election day comes around 
and you want to hold up to the peo- 
ple the fruits of the Republican party 
and its methods of government. 

I have been going up and down this 
country for thirty-six years, telling 
the people as the elections came 
around that the Republican party 
stood for Protection, and for a meas- 
ure of Protection that would keep the 
foreigner out of the fields of compe- 
tition. If $2 will keep him out, it 
does not follow that a Tariff of a dol- 
lar and a half will do it. If you are 
voting for a dollar and a half, or go- 
ing to, because you simply want to 
make a reduction without calculating 
the basis vipon w^hich you make it, you 
will afford no Protection; and less 
than Protection is as bad as none, not 
only in lumber, but in every other 
field. 

The Republican party objected to 
the horizontal cutting down of the 
Tariff because It must inevitably in 
many schedules cut below Protection. 
A duty of $4 is of no value at all if it 
takes $4.25 to constitute Protection. 
Just dare go back to the American 
people, after the support they gave 
you last fall, and tell them that you 
have abamdoned the principle of Pro- 
tection and have adopted the principle 
of compromise or something else. 

The Farmer Will Be Inquiring. 

Mr. President, the farmer will be in- 
quiring "where is the market for my 
produce, the market that I had last 
year in the hundred thousand camps 
of men who were engaged in the lum- 
ber trade?" The lumber Industry is 
the second largest item In the farmers' 
market, and wlien he asks "Where is 
this market that I had on election 



230 



HEYBURN. CLARK. 



day?" and you say to him, as you must 
if you do this tiling: "Why, those peo- 
ple are not at present engaged in any 
employment; they have no reserve 
with which to buy your products, and 
you will have to either carry them 
over or not produce them." He will 
respond: "I sowed this field of wheat, 
I planted these crops under the prom- 
ise of the Republican party that it 
would maintain the conditions that 
would insure me a market." Then, 
what will you say? "Well, we only 
reduced the duty slightly; we only 
shut off your prosperity a little." You 
might as well be choking a man, and, 
merely because you do not choke him 
to death, excuse yourself for partially 
choking him because you do not com- 
pletely do it. 

Mr. President, I feel that the hour 
has come when those in this Cham- 
ber who stand for the principles of 
the Republican party, and not for ex- 
periments, have got to stand up and 
speak up for the Republican party and 
its principles. 

The Great Clamor for Tariff Revision. 

A few months ago a great wail came 
up from off in the darkness and the 
dust of discontent, which alwaj's ex- 
ists in the minds of the minority. 
Probably some one may have said, 
"What is that great clamor; what is 
all that noise about?" "Why, it is the 
shout of the people for a revision of 
the Tariff." Well, they did not stop' 
to inquire what people or what ele- 
ment of the people. Some one said, "It 
is a cry of the people;" and a few Re- 
publicans, then in temporary control, 
got scared; but those who had fought 
in the ranks of Protection and Repub- 
licanism knew and told them that that 
cry came from the discontented Democ- 
racy, not discontented because the con- 
ditions of the country w^ere not pros- 
perous, but discontented because they 
were not in power and in office; and 
they were trying to scare the Repub- 
lican party so that it would take to 
the woods and abandon Republican 
principles; and I saw then that the 
cause of that fear and dread, while it 
may seem harsh to say it, was that 
the offices seemed to be slipping from 
tlicm. But I have been a good while 
in politics, and I think I may safely 

gay that that cry f<niii(l Its echo first 



in the minds of those \irho were afraid 
that the Republican party was not 
strong enough or strongly enough in- 
clined to keep them in office or to put 
them there; but the old stalwart wing 
of the Republican party 

Wfiat tfie Stalwarts Stand For. 

The stalwart wing of the Republican 
party stands for no partial measures, 
stands for nothing less than Protec- 
tion that Protects, stands for nothing 
less than a discriminating Tariff that 
shuts the foreigner out of our market 
so long as our own people can supply 
it; and at Chicago, when that fear and 
fright came over those who were mak- 
ing the platform and caused them to 
promise, in the hour of their fright, 
that they would be good according to 
Democratic principles and the Populist 
cry, and said: "Oh, yes; do not strike 
us; let us have the power; we will call 
a special session even; we will do any- 
thing; we will promise you to revise 
the Tariff" — and some of them have 
gone so far as to say that they prom- 
ised to revise it downAvard — the Re- 
publican party was not all at that con- 
vention. 

Mr. CLARK, of Wyoming. The mat- 
ter has been brought up several times 
as to the verdict of the people upon 
the revision of the Tariff. I should 
like to suggest to the Senator from 
Idaho, if the verdict in the last elec- 
tion was not a verdict, that the Tariff 
should be revised according to the Re- 
publican system of Protection, rather 
than revised according to the Demo- 
cratic system of a Tariff for revenue 
only? 

Mr. HEYBURN. Yes. Mr. President; 
and the verdict was something more. 
The verdict of the American people 
was "We will trust the Republican 
party; we will trust it according to 
the measure of its wisdom, in conven- 
tion or out, and we know that when it 
comes to act responsibly, it has always 
given us good results;" and had the 
people in the convention promised 
other things in that platform, only a 
fraction of the Republican party was 
there, and the people knew the Re- 
publican party well enough to know 
that even though, inadvertently, it 
might make expressions that sounded 
badly, it could be trusted in the hour 
of its responsibility, 



BORAH. GALLlXCxER. 



231 



The Man Who Thinks as a Protec= 
tionist and Argues as a Free= 
Trader. 

From the Congressional Record of May 24. 
1909. 

WILLIAM E. BORAH, of Idaho. Mr. 
President, the question asked by the 
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Tillman] of the Senator from Ne- 
braska []\Ir. Burkett] illustrates the 
unfortunate position of the man who 
thinks as a Protectionist and argues 
as a Free-Trader. The great foes of 
the Protective policy have always been 
within the ranks of Protection — those 
who would make an exception in favor 
of or against a particular industry. 
Such men overlook the fact, or, seeing 
it, ignore the fact that, as I said the 
other day, unless the policy of Protec- 
tion is a system it can not be justified 
at all. There is no way either In con- 
stitutional law or In morals by which 
you can properly lay a tax to sustain 
an industry or to enable an Industry 
to live when otherwise it could not 
live, and thereby. In a sense, to tax 
one individual for the benefit of an- 
other, except upon the theory that as 
a policy or system it develops our 
natural resources, diversifies our in- 
dustries, gives employment to the dif- 
ferent dispositions and desires of men, 
and creates and maintains a home mar- 
ket. Upon anj' other theory, the Pro- 
tective sj'stem is a privilege — a 
wrong, if not a fraud — and those who 
argue for the free-lumber schedule 
must do so with the full knowledge of 
the fact that they are presenting an 
argument which undermines the whole 
superstructure of Protection. 

If the farmer can ask for free lum- 
ber or free anything which he buys, 
the man In the mill, whether manu- 
facturer or laborer, has the same right 
to ask for free articles which he pur- 
chases, because it must be a conceded 
fact that to single out any one par- 
ticular industry and take ofC the duty 
is, in all probability, to lower the price 
of the product of that industry to the 
consumer. For further illustration, if 
good old New England, the home of 
Protection as well as of culture and 
wealth, should so far forget herself as 
to demand free hides, the Western 
rancher and the Western farmer would 
have a right in return to demand free 



saddles, free harness, free shoes, and 
free everything else that is made out 
of hides; and we arrive pretty soon, 
Mr. President, at the point where the 
great French economist and the most 
subtle of logicians. M. Bastiat. would 
have placed us years ago, and that Is a 
condition of freedom of exchange with 
each other and with all the world. 

The Real Question. 

Those who argue for free lumber, 
therefore, must do so upon some legit- 
imate basis consistent with the policy 
of Protection, or they must be satisfied 
to stand forth and argue for free lum- 
ber upon the same basis that nine- 
tenths of the schedules could be ar- 
gued against so far as duties are con- 
cerned In this bill. The real question 
Is whether or not the removal of the 
duty from lumber will lower the price 
to the consumer, or rather whether 
or not the lowering of the duty on 
lumber will still retain the industry 
and yet lower the price to the con- 
sumer. 

The American farmer will not appre- 
ciate the eulogies which are delivered 
upon hinr'here in this Chamber unless 
some result in a practical, positive 
way accrues to him, because the Amer- 
ican farmer is a very practical citizen; 
in other words, he will not appreciate 
the eulogies which have been pro- 
nounced and the discussion of the de- 
nuded hillsides unless, as a result of 
that, he can maintain his home mar- 
ket and still have his lumber cheaper 
than he has it to-day. 



An Adjustment Based upon the 
Broad Principles of Protection for 
All American Interests. 

From the Congressional Record of May 24, 
1909. 
JACOB H. GALLINGER, of New 
Hampshire. The distinguished gentle- 
man who at present presides, over this 
body was likewise on the Republican 
ticket as a candidate for the high 
office of Vice-President. This Is his 
utterance when he was notified of his 
nomination: 

First, then, let me say that I am a 
Protectionist. I am sufficiently prac- 
tical to value the utility of a fact high- 
er than the beauty of a theory. I am 
a Protectionist because experience has 
demonstrated that the application of 



232 



GALLINGER. BORAH. 



that principle has lifted us as a Nation, 
to a plane of prosperity above that 
occupied by any other people. I espe- 
cially commend that plank of our plat- 
form which promises an early revision 
of the Tariff schedules. That pledge 
will be fulfilled in an adjustment based 
In every particular upon the broad 
principles of Protection for all Ameri- 
can interests: alike for labor, for capi- 
tal, for producers and consumers. The 
Dingley bill when enacted was well 
adapted to the then existing condi- 
tions. The developments of industrial 
prosperity in a decade, which in vol- 
ume and degree have surpassed our 
most roseate expectations, have so al- 
tered conditions that in certain details 
of schedules they no longer in every 
particular mete out exact justice to all. 
In this readjustment the principle of 
Protection must and will govern. Such 
duties must and will be imposed as 
will equalize the cost of production at 
home and abroad and insure a reason- 
able profit to all American interests. 
The Republican idea of such profit em- 
braces not alone the manufacturer, not 
alone the capital invested, but all en- 
gaged in American production, the em- 
ployer and the employed, the artisan, 
the farmer, the miner, and those en- 
gaged in transportation and trade; 
broadly speaking, those engaged in 
every pursuit and calling which our 
Tariff directly or Indirectly affects. 

I thank the Senator for permitting 
me to put this into the Record. 



Duties To Be Lowered Within the 
Principle and Policy of Protection. 

From 'ihe Congressional Record of May 24, 
1909. 

WILLIAM E. BORAH, of Idaho. A 
great deal has been said, Mr. President, 
in this Chamber and elsewhere with ref- 
erence to the meaning of the Chicago 
platform. I am one of those who be- 
lieve that the Chicago platform meant 
an honest and faithful revision of the 
Tariff, and that that revision was un- 
derstood in the public mind to be a 
revision downward, but always within 
the lines of sufficient Protection to 
American Industries and American la- 
bor. 

This, Mr. President, did not mean, as 
was so often pointed out during the 
campaign by the President himself, 
but that there might be instances in 
which it would be necessary to raise 
the duty in order that the principle 
of Protection might be preserved; but 
undoubtedly It did mean, in a general 
way, that when the duties could be 
lowered, within the policy and princi- 
ple of the party of Protection, that 



that should occur, and that rule should 
be adopted and carried out in good 
faith. 

But, Mr. President, there was noth- 
ing better understood by the great 
mass of the American people during 
the last campaign than that there 
.should be no injudicious, indiscrim- 
inate, or unfriendly attack upon the 
underlj'ing and fundamental principles 
of the Protective policy. There was 
nothing better understood than that 
whatever revision should take place 
by the American Congress should be 
within the light of that great principle 
and within the integrity of that prin- 
ciple. The people understood that just 
as fully and just as completely as they 
understood that they would take hold 
of the Tariff and undertake to adjust 
irregularities and abuses which may 
have grown up in the last ten years. 
They had an opportunity to pass upon 
this question. It was directly pre- 
sented. It was accentuated, not only 
by the platforms, but by the candi- 
dates themselves. One of the candi- 
dates had been reared in the school of 
Protection. He was pledged to the 
policy, and it was understood that 
whenever he directed the revision of 
the Tariff it would be In the effort to 
preserve the Protective policy with 
reference to all these industries. 

Revision by Friends of the American 
Protective Policy. 

The other candidate had been reared 
in the school of Tariff for revenue 
only. Both candidates w^ere pledged 
to revision. One of them was a friend 
of Protection, the other was an enemy 
of Protection; and the American peo- 
ple said, with an overwhelming voice, 
"Give us revision, but give it to us by 
the friends of the American Protective 
policy, in order that it may be pre- 
served as the Republican party has 
preserved It In this country In the last 
fifty years." 

If they had been desirous of having 
a revision here which should Ignore 
the Protection of American Industries, 
they had an opportunity to cast their 
votes in accordance with that desire. 
They did not do so, which meant, when 
there is fair Interpretation of the plat- 
form, that the American people wanted 
revision; but above all and beyond all 
they wanted the great policy of Pro- 



BORAfl. McCUMBER. 



233 



tection preserved in the industrial sys- 
tem of the United States. 

There never was a time, Mr. Presi- 
dent, when the- Protective principle 
was so universally accepted, North, 
South. East, and West, as at the pres- 
ent time. We have our matters to 
adjust and conditions to meet; high 
prices, and those incidents and things 
which have been discussed here: but it 
is not yet the belief of the majority 
of the American people that you can 
meet those conditions and adjust those 
situations by tearing down the bar- 
riers and removing the walls, so that 
the foreign manufacturer may take 
possession of the American market. 

Protective Principle lifusf Be Carefully 
Guarded. 

There never was a time either, Mr. 
President, in my judgment, when it 
was so essential and so necessary 
carefully to guard the Protective prin- 
ciple as it is to-day. All duties should 
be lowered which can be lowered and 
the policj' and principle of Protection 
preserved; and so far as I am con- 
cerned, I am perfectly willing to meet 
this timber schedule, or any other 
schedule which is presented in this 
Chamber, upon that basis; but when 
it is contended that the American peo- 
ple understood that in this question of 
revision we should ignore that princi- 
ple, an effort is made to insert in that 
platform something which was never 
there, and which no one ever conceived 
of. No man went into the country 
where I lived, or any part of it, and 
advocated the doctrine which has been 
advocated in this Chamber as the prin- 
ciple which should prevail in reference 
to revision; that is, that it should be 
downward, regardless of the principle 
of Protection. 

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Nelson] a few days ago said: 

Mv objection to the duties levied 
upon lumber rests upon the fundamen- 
tal fact that it is fostering and build- 
ing up one of the greate.st and worst 
monopolies in the country. 

I thought, Mr. President, when I 
heard that language that I had heard 
it somewhere before. I was like the 
member of the legislature, either in 
Massachusetts or Arkansas, or some 
other good State, who heard the Lord's 
prayer by the chaplain, when the ses- 



sion was opened, and said he was cer- 
tain he had heard it soinewhere before. 

Has Not Usually Come From That Side of 
the Chamber. 

It has long been a contention in this 
country tliat the Protective policy 
builds up monopolies. It has not usu- 
ally come from this side of the Cham- 
ber. It has usually been presented 
with a great deal of effect from the 
other side of the Chamber. But I want 
to say that if that is true, if it does 
build up monopolies or if the legiti- 
mate result of it is to build up 
monopolies, this bill should be sent 
back to the committee and recon- 
structed upon a different basis entire- 
ly; and it will be very difficult after 
this doctrine, this new revelation by 
the Senator who has been lately to the 
island of Patmos, goes out to the 
American people, to sustain the Pro- 
tective policy before the people of this 
country. 

It has been advocated since the day 
when some people charged Alexander 
Hamilton with promulgating it for 
the purpose of Protecting the moneyed 
interests of the country at that time. 
It has been advocated upon every po- 
litical battlefield from 1860 to the 3d 
of November, 1908, and it has been as 
successfully met not only by the argu- 
ments of the men who do not admit, 
but as successfully met by the judg- 
ment of the great American jury — 
the men who vote in this country. 



Protection Principle Does Not Apply 
to the Lumber Industry. 

From the Congressional Record of May 24, 
iQog. 
PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North 
Dakota. Mr. President, the underlying 
principle of the Protective policy is 
that it compels the consumer to pay an 
additional sum to-day, compels the 
greater number to pay a greater price 
for a given commodity to-day by an 
assurance that it will pay a less price 
for it to-morrow. That is the Repub- 
lican policy, and reduction in cost has 
been its result wherever it has acted 
upon the great products of this coun- 
try. No man can deny for a single 
moment that if we had remained a 
Free-Trade country we would be pay- 



234 



McCUMBER. ELKINS. DOLLIVER. 



ing two or three or four times as 
much for all of the great manufac- 
tured articles that we use in the coun- 
try as we are paying to-day. But that 
does not necessarily mean that there 
shall be no free list upon the sched- 
ules that we are to pass upon. 

I said, and I state again, that the 
underlying principle of the policy of 
Protection to-day has no application to 
the lumber industry in the United 
States. 

P/ea In Behalf of Invesiors. 

Mr. ELKINS. We exported to Can- 
ada $15,000,000 worth of lumber last 
year, and that is a good deal. I do 
not know precisely what amount was 
imported from Canada, but I do not 
believe it was quite as much as that. 

What I want to say is that the con- 
servation of the forests is a matter of 
public concern, and properly so. Then 
why impose it on the individual? Men 
have invested all their fortunes in the 
lumber business, and why should we 
tell them now that they can not carry 
on their industry the same as their 
neighbors engaged in other business? 
Is it right to tell them, "You are to 
prolong the life of timber by having 
your business made a languishing one, 
by which you can make no money?" 
Whenever you have a man in a posi- 
tion where he can not make money, he 
will abandon the business. That does 
not apply, I am willing to say, to all 
the lumber industries of the United 
States; but as to those bordering on 
Canada and Mexico, that would be the 
result if we had free lumber. 

Does Not Believe They Would Be Injured. 

Mr, McCUMBER. Mr. President, it 
has never ocurred to me in this debate 
that if I could secure the adoption of 
this amendment I was going to render 
homeless all the people who own tim- 
ber land or that I was going to pau- 
perize the Weyerhauser interest that 
owns about one-seventh, as I under- 
stand, of the entire timber supply of 
the United States, outside of what the 
Government owns, or that they would 
seriously suffer; nor do I believe that 
those men who bought their timber 
lands ten or fifteen years ago for about 
15 cents per thousand and have seen 
them Increase in value about 2,000 per 
cent, would be seriously Injured If we 



should succeed in getting more lumber 
In from Canada. 

I have stated again and again — and 
anyone who will study this question 
carefully will agree with me — that, 
considering the extent to which we are 
consuming our forests in the United 
States, considering the devastation of 
the forests in Canada, and the number 
of homes that are being built upon 
our Western plains, under normal con- 
ditions in the next few years the de- 
mand is going to be greater than ever 
before, and that is itself a guaranty 
against a decreasing valuation of the 
lumber product. Those who have 
bought that product at almost nothing 
are not going to lose anything if we 
succeed in holding the price down to 
about what it is at the present time. 
Everyone of us knows that the value 
of lumber for the last seven or eight 
years has been fixed, not entirely ac- 
cording to the question of supply and 
demand, but according to the limit of 
the ability of the American people to 
buy it. We were more prosperous from 
1897 to 1907 than we had ever been be- 
fore in our historj'. 



Practical Operation of the Policy of 
Free=Trade In Lumber. 

From the Congressional Record of May 24. 

IQ09. 

JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER, of Iowa. 
Lumber was put on the free list 
in 1894, and I was so interested to ob- 
serve the effect of that provision of 
law that I made long journeys to the 
frontier to see how the lumber duties 
were operating, or, rather, how the 
policy of Free-Trade in rough lumber 
was operating. At the city of Duluth 
I found a bridge being built of lum- 
ber, connecting the city of Duluth with 
the city of Superior, a magnificent 
structure over a mile long, connecting 
two of the greatest lumber yards In 
America, but being constructed out of 
lumber brought in from Georgian 
Bay, notwithstanding the fact that 
grass and oats were growing on the 
tops of the most imposing piles of 
sawed lumber there that I ever looked 
at in my life. 

Mr. CLAPP. I want to ask the Sen- 
ator why tliat was? Does he not real- 
ize that that was done before the sys- 
tem had developed of bringing that 



t)OLLIVER. 



235 



long timber from the Far West which 
we now get? 

Mr. DOLLTVER. I do not know, but 
I remember the impression it made 
upon my mind, that while it did not 
affect my own people in the com- 
munity where I lived, it might operate 
adversely to the people who were try- 
ing to conduct the lumber business 
along the Canadian frontier; and I 
have never been surprised that the 
people of Maine, Vermont, and New 
Hampshire have felt less inclined 
toward free lumber, notwithstanding 
the rapid disappearance of their own 
forests, than some other sections of 
the country have been. 

Free-Trade on the Pacific Coast. 

I went out to the Pacific coast and 
there had an opportunity to see how 
Free-Trade in lumber was working on 
that far-off boundary of the United 
States. I was impressed by the fact 
that the remnants of Canadian lumber 
yards in British Columbia, in queer- 
looking craft of one sort and another, 
were being carried into every harbor 
of our Pacific Ocean under a foreign 
flag, sneaking even into Seattle and 
Tacoma, into San Francisco, Los An- 
geles, San Diego, and down that shore, 
delivered to our people in the place of 
that which was for sale in lumber 
j'ards in all those cities, but which 
could not be sold in the face of this 
competition. 

To-day, if lumber goes on the free 
list, it might seem that it would not 
seriously affect those good people in 
Washington and Oregon, and yet It 
must be evident that lumber taken out 
of Vancouver Island and out of British 
Columbia ports can be carried down 
the Pacific coast in cheap vessels un- 
der a foreign register, with a freight 
rate discriminating in their favor very 
largely compared with our own coast- 
wise freight rates. We might create 
the very singular situation there of 
people living outside of the United 
States enjoying a rate for ocean trans- 
portation based upon the standard 
fixed by tramp steamers, taking lum- 
ber from Vancouver Island and from 
British Columbia into every seaport of 
the Pacific coast, to the disadvantage 
of our own people who are manufac- 
turing lumber at Portland and Seattle 
and in northern California. 



Would Do Little Good and Might Do Much 
Harm. 

Mr. President. I have often said to 
our people that if I could see any dis- 
tinct and certain advantage to them in 
putting lumber upon the free list, I 
would be very much inclined to help 
them without inquiring very closely 
into how it would affect other sections 
of the country. But the more I have 
thought about the lumber question the 
more I have coine toward the con- 
clusion that what is proposed to be 
done in the amendment which has 
been offered by my honored friend the 
Senator from North Dakota will prob- 
ably do the people whom we try to 
serve no good or little good, and at the 
same time may be a harsh and in- 
jurious stroke against our friends who 
have gone out into the mountain coun- 
try and into the Pacific coast country 
and have there built up this great in- 
dustry. 

It is the fourth industry of the 
American people — agriculture, the 
metals, the textiles, the manufactures 
based upon wood. It employs nearly a 
million men in the United States. It 
has invested nearly a billion dollars. 
It has a product which makes it the 
fourth industry of our people. 

The census of 1900 shows that at 
that time it was the chief manufactur- 
ing industry of 31 States of the Union, 
including my own, and an important 
industry in every State of the Union 
and in every Territory and in all our 
islands of the sea. 

I doubt very much whether we ap- 
proach the problem with wisdom when 
we take this article, representing such 
an investment and such an employ- 
ment of labor so widely scattered, and 
put it upon the free list, without any 
regard to the influences that afford 
either the labor it employs or the cap- 
ital that is invested in it, and without 
any attempt to secure from Canada a 
corresponding concession. 

Sympathy With People Who Are Trying 
to Make a Living, 
I confess that I am in very strong 
sympathy with those of our fellow- 
citizens who are trying to make their 
living in remote regions of our coun- 
try. Many of them have gone to 
Idaho, Washington, and Oregon from 



236 



DOLLIVER. CLAPP. 



my own State, and without exception 
they look upon this policy as damag- 
ing to them. They say that the mar- 
ket which they have on the Pacific 
coast is their basis of profitable opera- 
tion. 

It is that market which underlies 
the permanent and steady prosperity 
of their industry. They say that Free- 
Trade in lumber would expose their 
local market throughout the whole 
length of the Pacific coast to an Imme- 
diate and damaging invasion from the 
coasts of British Columbia. 

Mr. McCUMBER. I desire to ask how 
that possibly can be, when those same 
sections are exporting to Australia and 
to Asia generally at least three times 
as much as the Canadians are export- 
ing and are selling it in competition 
with British Columbia in all the for- 
eign markets? 

Mr. DOLLIVER. That is the exact 
question which I asked in more than 
20 sawmills on the north Pacific coast. 
They said that the mills In Canada 
were sending to England and to their 
own Eastern seaboard the first-class 
lumber which they produced, and the 
tragedy of the situation was that they 
were unloading on the coast cities of 
the United States the remnants of 
their lumber yards which they could 
not sell either In London or in Mon- 
treal. So we had the strange spec- 
tacle of our own industry prejudiced 
and in some cases totally destroyed, as 
they informed me. 

Doctrine of Protection as Broad as This 
Continent. 

Now, my doctrine of Protection is as 
broad as this continent. If this doc- 
trine is cast away where these scat- 
tered sawmills are concerned, it would 
be difficult to find any place for its 
application. 

I do not propose, making an honest 
and conscientious study as I have tried 
to make of our industrial system, to 
intentionally expose to loss or injury 
even the humblest occupations of the 
American people; and hard as I have 
tried to get the consent of my own 
mind to it, I am not willing to take 
this Industry, representing so vast an 
Investment, representing the employ- 
ment of so great an army of hard- 
working people, and put it In uncon- 
ditionally upon the free list. It ought 



to retain a small duty at least, a duty 
large enough to be of consequence, 
when we seek, as we surely will at 
some time, a more reasonable trade re- 
lation with Canada tlian now seems 
probable. If a present of the revenue 
now derived from the lumber duties is 
to be made to citizens of Canada, we 
ought surely to accompany the gift 
with a request for reciprocal conces- 
sions on the same articles exported 
into the Dominion over duties very 
much larger than we now exact from 
these people. 



Sees No Necessity for a Tariff on 
Lumber. 

From the Congressional Record of May 24, 
1909. 

MOSES E. CLAPP, of Minnesota. 
Now, Mr. President, in regard to the 
lumber rate, applying what, to my 
mind, is the most satisfactory princi- 
ple of all the evidence in this Tariff 
discussion to the lumber question, I 
can see no necessity whatever for a 
Tariff upon lumber, in view of the in- 
significant importation of lumber to 
this country and the vast production 
within our own midst. I want to tell 
the Senator from Iowa that a promi- 
nent lumberman once told me that 
Iowa itself was a market for more 
pine lumber than all the world outside 
of the United States. With that mar- 
ket to supply, with this timber in our 
midst, with our mills here, with our 
investments here, with the demand in- 
creasing and the supply diminishing, I 
do not believe that the American lum- 
ber interests will suffer one iota by 
taking off this duty. If I did. I would 
agree with the Senator. I would not 
stand here to strike down any indus- 
try. 

But I want to remind the Senator 
that while tlie fact is urged that 
millions are invested in this industry, 
that fact, instead of being evidence of 
the necessity of retaining tlie Tariff, 
would rather indicate the successful 
and permanent character of the indus- 
try and as no longer requiring this 
duty. It is more evidence, to my mind, 
of the ability of the industry to main- 
tain itself. 



BATLF.Y. STONE. 



237 



Tariff on Lumber in the Law of 
1846 Nearly Double What It Is 
Now. 

From the Congressional Record of May 24. 
1909. 

JOSEPH W. BAILEY, of Texas. I 
want to show my Democratic friends 
— of course they know it just as well 
as I do, and most of them know it bet- 
ter — that in the Democratic Tariff act 
of 1846, about which Democrats speak 
so often and about which they are 
justified in always speaking, that the 
duty on lumber was nearly double 
what it is in the existing law. Of 
course Senators all remember that the 
schedules of the Walker Tariff act 
were not arranged according to the 
commodities or articles. There was no 
wool schedule, no metal schedule, and 
no earthenware schedule. The sched- 
ules in that act were arranged alpha- 
betically and according to the rate of 
duty imposed, beginning with the 
Schedule A, which imposed the high- 
est rate of 100 per cent, and that duty 
was laid on brandy and other similar 
luxuries. Schedule B, as I now recall, 
levying a duty of 40 per cent, was the 
next one. 

The next was Schedule G, which lev- 
led a duty of 30 per cent; the next was 
Schedule D, which levied a duty of 25 
per cent; and the next was Schedule 
E, which levied a duty of 20 per cent; 
and Schedule E, levying that duty of 
20 per cent, included lumber. I will 
read it: 

Boards, planks, staves, laths, scant- 
lings, spars, hewn and sawed timber, 
and timber to be used in buildingr 
wharves. 

This ideal Democratic Tariff meas- 
ure, whose duties were supposed to be 
adjusted with scientific precision from 
a Democratic point of view, levied a 
duty of 20 per cent on lumber; and yet 
we hear men say now that Democratic 
principle requires us to put lumber on 
the free list. 

Mr. DIXON. I have been very much 
interested in the Senator's description 
of the apparent Inconsistencies on this 
side of the Chamber, and I am frank 
enough to say, with some degree of 
truth, I think. But now, as the great 
expounder of Democratic doctrine, how 
does he at this time square his present 
declaration of a Tariff for revenue on 
lumber with that provision of the 



Democratic national platform adopted 
at Denver last June, which declared: 

We demand the Immediate repeal of 
the Tariff on wood pulp, print paper, 
lumber, timber, and logs, and that 
those articles be placed upon the free 
list? 

Repudiates the Democratic Doctrine of 

Free Raw Materials. 

Mr. BAILEY. I understand that, just 
as I do the declaration for free raw 
materials generally. I utterly refuse 
to be bound by it, because it Is not a 
Democratic doctrine. I understand it 
was declared by a Democratic conven- 
tion, but, Mr. President, yielding 
obedience, absolute and implicit obedi- 
ence, to any declaration of principles 
which my party may make — and when 
I can not yield that obedience I will 
withdraw from membership in it — I yet 
refuse to allow a set of delegates, se- 
lected by the people absolutely with- 
out reference to a question of that 
kind, but selected almost solely with 
a view to the candidacies of men, to 
assemble in a convention and assume 
the function of legislators. The busi- 
ness of a national convention is to de- 
clare the principles of the party; and 
if they are not willing to trust the 
Senators and Representatives belong- 
ing to that party to apply those prin- 
ciples according to wise details, they 
ought to select some other Senators 
and Representatives, and they will 
have to do It In my case. That Is my 
answer. 



Democrats Who Voted for a Protect 
tive Duty on Iron Ore. 

From the Congressional Record of May zfi, 
1909. 
WILLIAM J. STONE, of Missouri. 
Mr. President, I am one of the 18 Dem- 
ocrats who voted to put a duty of 25 
cents per ton on Iron ore. The 18 
Democrats who voted that way are 
Messrs. Bacon, Bailey, Bankhead, 
Chamberlain, Clay, Daniel, Fletcher, 
Foster, Frazier, Johnston of Alabama, 
McEnery, Martin, Paynter, Simmons, 
Stone, Taliaferro, Taylor, and Tillman. 
Ten Democrats voted to put Iron ore 
on the free list, viz, Messrs. Clarke of 
Arkansas, Culberson, Gore, Hughes, 
Newlands, Overman, Rayner, Shively, 
Smith of Maryland, and Smith of Soutai 
Carolina. How the 5 Democrats who 



238 



STONE. ELKINS. 



were absent or paired, and therefore 
are not recorded, would have voted, I 
do not know. Up to this time there 
are only two questions upon which 
Democratic Senators have divided to 
any appreciable extent — on iron ore 
and lumber; in fact, as a rule they 
have voted together and the same way. 
Mr. President, ever since we have 
had Tariff laws, and we have had them 
for more than a century, there has 
been a duty on iron ore. In all our 
Tariff laws up to this time, whether 
made by Democrats, Republicans, or 
others, a duty has been laid on these 
ores. 



West Virginia Interests Menaced by 
Free=Trade Republicans. 

From the Congressional Record of May 26. 
1909. 

STEPHEN B. ELKINS, of West Vir- 
ginia. Mr. President, West Virginia 
is Interested in the duty on lumber, 
coal, and oil. They are the three lead- 
ing products of the State, and I may 
say in a measure leading products of 
the South. 

West Virginia is In an unfortunate 
position so far as the pending bill is 
concerned. It would seem that the 
Committee on Finance, that reported 
the pending bill, is not overfriendly 
to her products. What is termed as 
the "progressives" in this honorable 
body — I do not mean this in any 
offensive sense — I greatly fear will not 
vote for a duty on coal, oil, and lum- 
ber, calling them "raw materials." The 
Finance Committee has gone so far as 
to put oil on the free list; coal is In 
suspense; and the duty on lumber is 
reduced 50 per cent In the bill, and the 
most violent Free-Trader as to lumber, 
coal, and oil I have ever known is a 
leading member of the committee from 
the State of North Dakota [Mr. Mc- 
Cumber]. I hope I do not do him any 
Injustice when I make this statement. 
These two powerful elements in the 
Senate shake hands across the chasm 
that divides them on everything else 
and seem to agree as to the products 
of West Virginia. What is to be the 
outcome I do not know. West Vir- 
ginia, It appears, can not get the re- 
lief she deserves from the Finance 



Committee, and I know in her distress 
she can not get sympathy from the 
progressives. 

Author of a Now and Strange Doctrine. 

The Senator from North Dakota ar- 
gues that because a product is not 
long lived its life ought to be pro- 
longed by putting it on the free list. 
Timber, he says, can not last long; 
and as a remedy to prolong its life. It 
should not have a duty, should not be 
Protected, no matter what becomes of 
the people who own timber lands, 
what becomes of the money they have 
Invested, of their mills and plants, of 
their homes and means of making a 
living, and of the wage-earners em- 
ployed in the lumber industry. No 
matter what the injustice may be, his 
aim is to prolong the life of timber, 
even if he destroys the lumber Indus- 
try; but he does not fail, however, to 
vote the highest duties on the products 
of his State, even if they should be 
short lived. He seems to be the au- 
thor of his own peculiar theory as to 
putting some products on the free list 
because they are short lived and can 
never be reproduced w^hen once ex- 
hausted. I am sure he will remain the 
undisputed author of this new and 
strange doctrine; no one will want to 
take the honor from him. I have re- 
cently gone over all of the great writ- 
ers on political economy, Jevons, 
Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Walker, 
Adam Smith, and others, and none 
hints at such a theory or notion as 
that advanced by the Senator from 
South Dakota. 

Seems to Favor Protection in Spots. 

Mr. President, I agree fully with 
what the Senator from Idaho [Mr. 
Borah] stated in reply to the remarks 
of the Senator from North Dakota, 
when he saW that the Protection Is 
either a principle or not. Protection 
can not be a great cardinal principle, 
an Important national policy, and at 
the same time be local and distributed 
around in spots. I do not want to 
offend the Senator from North Dakota, 
but he seems to favor Protection in 
spots. He is for high duties on all 
the products of his State and no du- 
ties, no Protection on many of the 
products of other States. 

Now, let us see what the FInanee 
Committee has reported In the pending 



ELKINS. 



239 



bill. The committee increases the duty 
5 cents a bushel on oats. That is about 
20 per cent Increase. North Dakota 
raises oats, and yet the Senator is a 
revisionist downward when he cornea 
to the products of my State; not only 
downward, but downward clear out of 
sight, until he reaches the free list. 
The Senator and the committee put 5 
cents a bushel more on wheat, an In- 
crease of 25 or 30 per cent, and in- 
creases the duty on rye to 100 per 
cent. The duty on buckwheat is In- 
creased 5 cents a bushel, again a 25 
per cent advance. Rice is the only 
product of the South that gets an in- 
creased duty, a raise from 1^ to 2 
cents per pound. 

The duty on corn is increased from 
15 to 20 cents a bushel, and no nation 
on earth can compete with us in corn, 
nor does any nation want to do it. I 
can not understand what the commit- 
tee meant by advancing the duty on 
•corn, nor on wheat, rye, and barley. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Is the Senator from 
West Virginia opposing these increases 
on agricultural products? 

Asks Fair Treatment for West Virginia. 

Mr. ELKINS. Not at all. I am not 
opposing them in any way. All I ask 
is that the distinguished Senator will 
put a fair duty on the products of 
West Virginia, which are worth just 
as much — yes, more in many localities 
— and entitled to the same considera- 
tion. All I desire is that the Finance 
Committee be just, fair, and consistent. 
This is all I ask for West Virginia at 
the hands of the committee; nothing 
more; no discrimination against our 
products. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Is the Senator from 
West Virginia trying to make a trade 
with me or with the Senator from 
North Dakota [Mr. McCumber] ? 

Mr. ELKINS. I had rather trade 
with the chairman of the committee, 
the Senator from Rhode Island. 
[Laughter.] He can deliver more, and 
I think West Virginia would get bet- 
ter treatment from him. He is a 
sound Protectionist. 

Mr. President, I do not mean to make 
any complaint whatever against the 
chairman of the Finance Committee. I 
know he is a Protectionist and wants 
to be just and fair; and whatever in- 
firmities possess him and are apparent 



in. him in the conduct of this great 
transaction of framing a Tariff bill 
they are not due to what he feels, but 
are due to his surroundings. He can 
not help this great disparity in the 
schedules, some enjoying high duties 
and others none. I know what he 
means by "West Virginia products." I 
know we have greater products than 
lumber. I have named them. We have 
iron, steel, glass, and many other prod- 
ucts, and I may say with our deposits 
of coal, oil, and gas, our water power, 
and our great advantages in reaching 
the markets east and west, one day 
West Virginia will rival Pennsylvania 
and New England in mills and manu- 
facturing plants. This is her sure and 
certain destiny. 

Is tfie Tariff Local Or National in Prin- 
ciple? 

Mr. President, we ought to decide in 
the making of this bill one thing that 
has disturbed the country since Han- 
cock's time, and that is whether the 
Tariff is national or local in principle 
and application, whether in making a 
Tariff there should be fair dealing and 
no discrimination. I believe a majority 
of the people of this country have so 
often declared in favor of a Protective 
policy as a principle that it ought to 
be adhered to in the making of a 
Tariff bill. I believe that all Amer- 
ican products competing with products 
from abroad ought to have some 
measure of Protection, some share in 
the distribution of duties, and I think 
this rule, if adhered to, would satisfy 
fair-minded people and all good Pro- 
tectionists. 

The Government requires the raising 
of sufficient revenue if the duties 
should be justly and fairly distributed 
to Protect every American industry 
needing Protection. I think the chair- 
man of the Finance Committee will 
agree to this. The free list should 
not be increased by putting on it 
American products competing with for- 
eign products; but rather there should 
be placed a duty on foreign products 
that compete with American products, 
the rates to be fixed according to the 
conditions and the rule laid down in 
the Republican platform. I will be 
perfectly willing, so far as the prod- 
ucts of West Virginia are concerned, to 
do that. We do not ask high Protec- 



240 



ELKINS. 



tion or high duties; we are willing to 
be left in the low-duty class, but ob- 
ject to putting any of the West Vir- 
ginia products on the free list or re- 
ducing the already low duties now 
laid upon them. 

A Just, Fair and Equiiable Revision. 

I believe the average duty of 45 per 
cent could be reduced slightly by re- 
ducing the duties on highly Protected 
products and putting more duty, low 
or high, as the case may be, on all for- 
eign products competing with Ameri- 
can products. That would be a just, 
fair, and equitable revision of the 
Tariff, such as promised in the Repub- 
lican platform and in the speeches 
made by President Taft before and 
since the campaign. I want to adhere 
precisely to that rule, principle, or 
policy in making this Tariff. In other 
words, I want to treat as nearly as 
may be all American products alike. I 
mean in the matter of affording some 
Protection. I do not mean all alike as 
to rates. The rates should be adjusted 
according to labor conditions and the 
difference between cost of labor here 
and abroad. One thing above all 
others — we must, in making the Tariff 
bill, Protect American wage-earners in 
wages and employment. 

It Would Not Be Revision, But Destruc- 
tion. 

To better Illustrate my position, a 
farmer, a coal operator, a timber own- 
er with his sawmill, and the owner of 
a woolen mill are all located near the 
Canadian border doing business, their 
industries having been in active opera- 
tion for many years. Each has all of 
his capital invested, employing labor, 
paying wages, each making reasonable 
profits, educating his family, and all 
being good citizens. 

The products of all four Industries, 
however, compete In our market with 
products of like industries in Canada, 
and all enjoy some degree of Protec- 
tion under the Dingley "bill and are 
prosperous. Now, I wish to ask If, In 
revising the Tariff, is it just and fair 
to continue high duties and ample Pro- 
tection on the woolen manufacturer's 
products and on the farmer's products 
and levy a low duty, or none at all, on 
the coal operator's coal and the timber 
owner's lumber? 



Under these circumstances the coal 
operator and lumber producer would 
be greatly injured if the duties were 
taken off their industries or if they 
should be greatly reduced. So far as 
the coal operator and the timber 
owner are concerned, this w^ould not 
be revision, but destruction. 

Now, is this fair? These people live 
there together. They are honest peo- 
ple, and good citizens, and have all 
their money invested, and, say what 
you please, if you let Canadian lumber 
in free or reduce this duty, it will de- 
stroy or impair the lumber industries 
of the United States as far as Canadian 
lumber can be hauled by rail cheaper 
than our lumber can be hauled. 

Protectionist in His Own State, Free- 
Trader in Other States. 

Mr. President, there is no use saying 
anything to divert attention from the 
main point in this debate. I know It 
hurts when a protest is made against 
injustice and discrimination, and I 
sympathize with the Senator from 
North Dakota In the unpleasant and 
unfortunate position In which he finds 
himself in trying to be a Protectionist 
In his State and a Free-Trader In my 
State, as to its products. 

People can not limit themselves to 
the products of their own States and 
their own wishes in making a Tariff. 
The various sections of this country 
are too closely connected for that. The 
South can not go forward in the In- 
dustrial race of the Nation unless she 
has the same opportunities and en- 
joys the same advantages as other sec- 
tions. She can not make the race 
handicapped with her products on the 
free list and the products of other sec- 
tions enjoying high Protection. If 
her finished and manufactured prod- 
ucts are on the free list, or bear only 
a very low duty, while others are 
highly Protected, she can not achieve 
the prosperity and progress to which 
she Is entitled. She would not have a 
fair chance; she would stand still 
while other sections would grow and 
move forward. 

// the Price ol a Commodity Is Reduced, 
Wages Must Come Down. 

The best form of distributing wealtli 
known to society thus far is tlirougli 
the payment of wages; If business Is 



ELKINS. 



241 



good, wages are good, then the distri- 
bution of wealth is greater. We know 
how to accumulate money, but we have 
not learned how to distribute it 
wisely and in the best way that it 
should be distributed. Let us main- 
tain good wages and not break down 
the best means for the distribution of 
wealth we have learned thus far, 
founded in justice, by breaking down 
our home Industries. 

I wish the Republican party could 
learn, and learn now, in this bill, to 
treat the people of the South, in the 
matter of Protection to their indus- 
tries, as fairlj^ and justly as it treats 
other sections. I think we would have 
more Republicans down South if we 
did. We may not think we need 
them, but I think the time is coming 
when we will need them perhaps to 
take the place of Free-Traders else- 
where. If 3'^ou increase this Free- 
Trade list, there is danger that trouble 
may break out in other sections of the 
country. We can not maintain Pro- 
tection in spots. 

Let us give the South the same Pro- 
tection on their products other sections 
enjoy. I do not mean necessarily to 
the same degree; I mean the same 
kind of Protection that is given to 
other sections of the country. I do not 
want a duty of 50 or 100 per cent on 
lumber. We can get along without it. 
But merely because we can get along 
with a slight duty, do not deny us the 
little that we have. 

The South Has Power to Enforce the 
Protection Policy. 

The South has power in this Cham- 
ber to-day, if it would unite, to write 
into this bill reasonable Protection on 
all her industries, the same as other 
sections of the Union enjoy. It seems 
to me Senators should stand together 
in a common cause to bring about this 
result. By refusing to do this they 
will only render aid to the States 
wanting lumber free and wanting all 
other products highly Protected. 

The South can not prosper equally 
with other sections of the country if 
what she produces and manufactures 
is put on the free list or only a very 
low duty imposed. Under such condi- 
tions she would be obliged to sell her 
products at low prices and pay high 
prices for what she consumes. Take 



the State of West Virginia: There are 
about 1,900 sawmills in the State ol 
West Virginia, with a capital invested 
of $20,000,000. That is all good, hard 
money, just the same as is invested In 
the farm lands and in the products of 
New England, New Jersey, and Penn- 
sylvania. It is not "stage money," but 
real money. And now the Senator 
says: "Well, let that capital be im- 
paired; that does not make any differ- 
ence. That does not affect North Da- 
kota." 

Wages Have Increased More Than Prices. 

The Senator from North Dakota Is 
alarmed at the advancing price of 
lumber. I will show him later on 
wages have increased much more. He 
is not alarmed because of the advance 
In meat, hay, wheat, and barley, and 
other products of his State. They may 
advance in price, and the poor people 
who are struggling to get them may 
suffer, but these products need Protec- 
tion to keep up the price. Let them 
advance, but great industries like lum- 
ber, oil, coal, and iron should take care 
of themselves and not advance in price. 

The advancing price of things ap- 
plies equally to other products. 

In the Tariff hearings before the 
Ways and Means Committee of the 
House, on page 3162, the following ap- 
pears: 

Taking the Forest Service report of 
the output of lumber, lath, and shin- 
gles, as distinct from the other manu- 
factures of wood, and which are not 
under discussion in this brief, and re- 
ducing lath and shingles to board 
measure, the value of the 1907 lumber 
output, on the basis of $15 per M feet, 
f. o. b. mills, was $630,735,000. As com- 
pared with other commodities it is as 
follows: Value. 

Lumber products, 1907 $630,735,000 

Wheat, 1908 546,827,000 

Cotton, 1907 640,311,538 

Wool, 1907 129,410,942 

I may add: Hay, $744,000,000; corn, 
$1,616,000,000. Hay Is highly Pro- 
tected in order to Protect the farmers 
of the Northwest, and I am glad of it, 
though this adds to the cost of the hay 
the lumberman and coal operator of 
West Virginia buys. 

Mr. BACON. I wish to say to the 
Senator that the unprotected article of 
cotton, which he has just mentioned, is 
worth more than $640,000,000. With 
its by-products — that is, the seed — it is 
$800,000,000. 

Mr. ELKINS. Eight hundred million 



242 P]LKINS. 

dollars. I accept that correction. The 
Senator is right. 

Value of Farm Products Compared with 
Lumber Products. 

I will name the value of the crops 
of Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, North 
Dakota, and South Dakota for last 
year: 

Value of all crops (including corn, 
wheat, oats, barley, rye, buckwheat, 
rice, and Kaffir corn). 

Minnesota $113,092,602 

Nebraska 92,056.580 

Kansas 112,684,696 

North Dakota 53,928,010 

South Dakota 44,069,331 

Total $415,831,219 

These five States want free lumber. 
It is to their interest, in a local sense, 
to have lumber free; but shall we, who 
have other things to Protect, vote this 
high Protection for their products and 
pay it out of our own pockets, while 
they vote against a duty on our prod- 
ucts? 

Think of the annual products of lum- 
ber being one-third more in value than 
the agricultural products of the five 
States I have named, all enjoying high 
Protection! 

Mr. President, all that I ask is that 
in this national policy of Protection 
'TA^'est Virginia and the South have a 
fair show. We are already in the low- 
duty class and we are satisfied to re- 
main there. We do not want our prod- 
ucts to be put on the free list nor the 
duties reduced. They ought not to be 
reduced in fairness. I appeal to a Re- 
publican Senate and a Congress com- 
mitted to Protection, for fairness and 
justice in the framing of a Tariff bill 
so far as the leading products of West 
Virginia are concerned. 



Early Protectionists, Washington, 
Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Jack- 
son. 

From the Congressional Record of May z6, 

SAMUEL D. McENERY. of Louisiana. 
In 1793 Washington spoke of Protec- 
tion in his address to Congress. He 
said the interest and safety of a free 
people required it; that they should 
prnmoto such manufactures as would 
make them indopondont of others for 



McENERY. 

necessaries, and above all for military 
supplies. The House sent the address 
to the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
at the next session Hamilton's famous 
report was received. 

Hamilton, like Jefferson, was a Pro- 
tectionist, favoring the Protection of 
nascent industries. 

President Madison, in order to keep 
alive these domestic industries, which 
had increased in usefulness during the 
European wars, urged the passage of 
the Tariff act of 1812 as a means to 
preserve and promote the manufac- 
tures which had sprung into existence 
and attained an unparalleled prosper- 
ity during the period of the European 
wars. 

Calhoun and Lowndes demanded that 
Protection to home industries should 
no longer be secondary to a Tariff for 
revenue only. These men thoroughly 
understood the history of the times 
which led to the formation of the Fed- 
eral Constitution. It is safe to say 
that no statesman of that day and time 
controverted the fact that the Consti- 
tution intended that Protection should 
be given to American industry. 

li/ladison's Interpretation of the Consti- 
tution. 

Mr. Madison said that to interpret 
the Constitution it is necessary to be 
acquainted with the nomenclature 
therein used and the history of events 
leading to its formation and adoption. 

Mr. Madison, who understood the 
Constitution better than any other per- 
son, in his speech in Congress in the 
debate on the first Tariff bill, made 
memorable by its declaration of a pur- 
pose to encourage and Protect manu- 
factures, said: 

The States that are most advanced in 
population and ripe for manufactures 
ought to have their particular interest 
attended to in some degree. While 
these States retained the power of reg- 
ulating trade, they had the power to 
protect and cherish such institution.s. 
By adopting the present Constitution 
they have thrown the exercise of this 
power into other hands; they must 
have done this with an expectation 
that those Interests would not be neg- 
lected here. 

The clause in the Constitution to 
regulate trade and commerce was a 
sprcific grant of power to impose a 
tax for the purpose of Protecting do- 
mestic manufactures. The colonists 



MgENERY. 



243 



refused to submit to a Tariff! for teve- 
hue only; but wheR it came to the 
regulation of trade and the imposition 
of a tax for Protection, they entered 
no complaint. They refused to submit 
to a Tariif for revenue without repre- 
sentation; but when the question pre- 
sented was the regulation of trade and 
an import tax was levied, they submit- 
ted, as it had reference to the several 
parts of the Empire in which they 
were all interested. 

The Fundamental Principle Is for a Pro- 
teciive Tariff. 

Or, as is expressed in some Demo- 
cratic platforms, a Tariff for revenue 
with incidental Protection. In either 
case it is Protection. Free-Trade pol- 
icy has no place in our system of gov- 
ernment. Revenue to support the Gov- 
ernment must be raised by constitu- 
tional methods. Practice and experi- 
ence have shown the most desirable 
means is by Tariff. No Tariff can be 
levied without carrying Protection to a 
greater or less degree. No TarifC law 
was ever enacted by a Democratic Con- 
gress and approved by a Democratic 
President without affording Protection 
to some Industry. The Tariff law levy- 
ing the lowest ad valorem duties was 
the Walker Tariff of 1846. This car- 
ried duties of from 5 to 100 per cent, 
and had distinct Protective features. 

The history of the country preceding 
the adoption of the Constitution af- 
fords absolute authority for the asser- 
tion that in the framing of the Con- 
stitution there was the translation of 
precedence and experience into consti- 
tuted authority and obligation for the 
defense of home interests against for- 
eign trespass. 

I do not think anyone has been bold 
enough to deny the records of Monroe 
and Madison as being highly favorable 
to the encouragement by Tariff legis- 
lation of American industries. 

Andrew Jackson, Protectionist. 

But what about Jackson, who, next 
to Jefferson, is looked upon as a Dem- 
ocratic authority? 

During the short time of his serv- 
ice in the United States Senate he ex- 
pressed decided opinions as to the con- 
Btltutlonal powers of Congress. He 
voted In the affirmative on eight differ- 
ent bills providing for Internal im- 



provements by the General Govern- 
ment, and his vote in favor of the 
Tariff of 1824, a Tariff founded entirely 
on the principle of Protection, afforded 
evidence that he held opinions in ac- 
cordance with those of Mr. Adams, 
Mr. Clay, and Mr. Calhoun, who at that 
time was not of the opinion that a 
Tariff bill should be constructed for 
revenue only. He carried the States 
of New York, Pennsylvania, and Illi- 
nois on his record as a Protectionist. 
The Tariff act of 1828 became a law 
during the presidential election, and 
Its details were arranged so as to meet 
political exigencies. It was Protective 
In its general features. 

Woolen Tariff of 1830. 

It was observed that the act did not 
furnish sufficient Protection to woolen 
manufactures. A bill was therefore 
reported by Mr. Mallary, chairman of 
the Committee on Manufactures, of the 
27th of January, 1830, to regulate the 
entry of the importations of woolens. 
It was passed, and became a law by 
the signature of Andrew Jackson on 
December 7, 1830. 

In 1823 he made It clear, from the 
following letter, that he favored Pro- 
tection to American industries: 

HERMITAGE. Near Nashville, 
May 17, 1823. 

SIR: A few days since, I had the 
pleasure to receive the grass hat which 
you had been pleased to present and 
forward to Mrs. Jackson, as a token of 
the respect and esteem entertained for 
my public services. Permit me, sir, 
to return to you my grateful acknowl- 
edgment for the honor conferred 
upon us In this token. Mrs. Jackson 
will wear with pride a hat made by 
American hands and made of Ameri- 
can materials. Its workmanship, re- 
flecting the highest credit upon the au- 
thors, will be regarded as an evidence 
of the perfection which our domestic 
manufactures may hereafter acquire. If 
properly fostered and Protected. Upon 
the success of our manufactures, as the 
handmaid of agriculture and commerce, 
depends, in a great measure, the inde- 
pendence of our country, and I assure 
you that none feel more sensibly than 
I do the necessity of encouraging them. 
For this instance of your respect and 
esteem, and the flattering language 
with which you have noticed my pub- 
lic services, accept, sir, my most sin- 
cere thanks. 

With great respect, your very obedi- 
ent and humble servant, 

ANDREW JACKSON. 
Col. ROBERT PATTERSON, Philadel- 

phia. 



244 



McENERY. 



Samuel J. Tilden a Protection Democrat. 

Samuel J. Tilden was a Protection 
Democrat in the sense that Jefferson 
and Jackson and Monroe and Madison 
were favorable to the encouragement 
of home industries by Tariff legisla- 
tion. I make this statement on the 
authority of the New York "Commer- 
cial Advertiser," a paper which makes 
no reckless statements; also upon the 
authority of Bigelow's "Life of Til- 
den," which contains, under Tilden's 
own signature, a declaration of his 
Protective ideas. It is true that his 
biographer says that there were rea- 
sons to believe he had modified his 
views, but he qualifies this statement 
by saying that in all the discussions 
of Tariff during his active and event- 
ful life there is no statement from him 
to that effect. 

Samuel J. Tilden, a Protection Demo- 
crat, was repeatedly honored in his 
State and in the Nation by the Demo- 
cratic party. I might also add the 
name of Silas Wright, the greatest 
Democrat of his day on the continent. 
He had no peer, and he was an avowed 
Protectionist until he came to Con- 
gress in 1846 and voted for the Walker 
Tariff bill, and he could do so without 
any violence to his principles by the 
Protection that it afforded. 

Recent Changes in Democratic Opinion. 

I may further add that it is gratify- 
ing, Mr. President, that at this session 
of Congress we notice a great change 
of opinion among Democrats in voting 
here for a tax on raw materials, when 
at one time it was considered a car- 
dinal principle of Democracy that raw 
material.s should be admitted free. I 
hope that the conditions of the coun- 
try. Its necessities, and the liberality 
generally which is prevailing among 
all classes of the people may dictate 
to the Democrats that they will aban- 
don all of the absurd theories of Free- 
Trade and of a low Tariff and come 
with the great body of the people and 
vote for a liberal Protection to all the 
manufacturing interests of the coun- 
try, to make them independent, as the 
fathers of the Republic declared, of 
all foreign countries. 

What has been the record of the 
party on this Tariff question? We 
need go back no further than to the 
platform of 1884. It wai a platform 



for Protection. It fully met the con- 
stitutional requirement for the raising 
of a revenue by Tariff, and at the same 
time affording Protection to American 
Industries. The Tariff plank in that 
platform recited: 

Democratic Tariff Planks. 

Knowing full well, however, that 
legislation affecting the operations of 
the people should be cautious and con- 
servative in method, not in advance of 
public opinion but responsive to its de- 
mands, the Democratic party is pledged 
to revise the Tariff in a spirit of fair- 
ness to all interests. But In making 
reduction in taxes it is not proposed to 
injure any domestic industries, but 
rather to promote their healthy 
growth. 

This is exactly what Is being done 
by this bill. It Is making a reduction, 
and, so far as my examination of it 
has gone, there has been no injury to 
any dom.estic industry, nor has there 
been imposed in any of its schedules 
any burden upon the people. 

From the foundation of this Gov- 
ernment taxes collected at the cus- 
tom-house have been the chief source 
of federal revenue. Such they must 
continue to be. Moreover, many in- 
dustries have come to rely upon legis- 
lation for successful continuance, so 
that any change of law must be at 
every step regardful of the labor and 
capital thus involved. The process of 
reform must be subject in the execu- 
tion to this plain dictate of justice — 
all taxation shall be limited to the re- 
quirements of economical government. 
The necessary reduction and taxation 
can and must be effected without de- 
priving American labor of the ability 
to compete successfully with foreign 
labor and without imposing lower 
rates of duty than will be ample to 
cover any increased cost of produc- 
tion which may exist in consequence 
of th<^ higher rate of wages prevailing 
In this country. 

The platform of 1888 also said: 

Our established domestic Industries 
and enterprises should not and need 
not be endangered by the reduction 
and correction of the burdens of taxa- 
tion. On the contrary, a fair and care- 
ful revision of our tax laws, with due 
allowance for the difference between 
the wages of American and foreign 
labor, must promote and encourage 
every branch of such industries and 
enterprises by giving them assurance 
of an extended market and steady and 
continuous operations. 

This is a clear enunciation of the 
principle of a Tariff to raise a revenue 
and at the same time afford Protec- 
tion. Under these platforms there la 
ample authority for the present Tariff 
bill. 

The Chicago convention which nom- 



McENERY 



245 



inated W. J. Bryan put in Its platform 
even a stronger declaration. The 
word "only" was purposely omitted. 
Under this platform I have the au- 
thority of a prominent and influential 
journal, a supporter of the bolting In- 
dianapolis convention, for saying that 
ample authority can be found for the 
sustaining of my course in supporting 
the Dingley Tariff bill. I acept its in- 
terpretation of that platform, and 
those who criticise my course and con- 
duct must repudiate the declaration 
not only of that convention, but of the 
Democratic convention and platforms 
of 1884 and 1888. 

The South Is Undergoing an Indusirial 
Revoluiion. 

Manufacturing interests are daily 
springing into prominence. These, 
with the agriculture and mining in-^ 
terests. will require in any Tariff bill 
adequate and impartial Protection. 
The young Senators of the South, who 
have voted for the Protection of local 
interests, approach near the sealed 
springs of prosperity. But a short step 
forward and they will unlock them and 
stand in the gray dawn of a splendor 
in industrial development that awaits 
the South. The fact is, opposition 
came from the South to the Tariffs of 
1824 and 1828 because she was ex- 
clusively agricultural and depended 
upon slave labor. It was a sectional 
opposition. Slavery has gone. The 
South is no longer exclusively agri- 
cultural. Her future greatness and in- 
fluence must spring from the addition 
of mining and manufacturing wealth 
to her agricultural interests. These 
facts are dawning upon her. Her 
younger statesmen will understand 
them. 

I affirm that the true doctrine of 
Democracy is in line with the rapid 
and progressive development of our 
country. I deny that its principles are 
directed to the destruction of our in- 
dustrial system, the putting out of 
furnace fires, the silencing of the busy 
hum of our looms or the whirring of 
our wheels, or, worse than all, to the 
paying of a premium to foreign pauper 
labor and the impoverishment of our 
tollers in every industrial occupation. 

Hamilion Held Good Democratic Doctrine. 
In Hamilton's report (1790) upon 



"commerce and manufactures," there Is 
not one thing said that is not good 
Democratic doctrine. It committed 
the Nation to the Protective system. 
It brought the people, irrespective of 
party, to the support of the Tariff act 
of 1789, which was the practical be- 
ginning of a Protective era lasting un- 
til 1816. All Tariff legislation until 
that date was Protective; all received 
the support of both parties — Federal- 
ists and Republicans (Democrats). The 
Tariff act of 1794, which increased du- 
ties to raise a greater revenue, found 
stronger support among Republicans 
(Democrats) than among Federalists. 
The Republicans were more inclined 
to its support because of their opposi- 
tion to the excise tax of the previous 
session. On March 26, 1804, an amend- 
ed Tariff act was passed still further 
increasing duties. The Republicans 
were in power, and Thomas Jefferson, 
the great apostle of Democracy, was 
President. 

The acts amendatory of the act of 
1789 were all in the line of Protection. 
During this period Washington said in 
his message: 

Our agriculture, commerce, and man- 
ufactures prosper beyond example — 
every part of the Union displays indi- 
cations of rapid and various improve- 
ment, and with burdens so light as 
scarcely to be perceived. 

Mr. Adams, in his last message, said: 

I observe with much satisfaction 
that the product of the revenue dur- 
ing the present year is more consider- 
able than at any former period. 

Thomas Jefferson, Protectionist 

Thomas Jefferson, in his second an- 
nual message, said: 

To protect manufactures adapted to 
our circumstances is one of the land- 
marks by which we shall guide our- 
selves. 

That Tariff produced an excess of 
revenue. In speaking on the subject, 
in his sixth annual message, he said: 

Shall we suppress the imposts and 
give that advantage to foreign over 
domestic manufactures? On a few ar- 
ticles of more general and necessary 
use the suppression, in due season, will 
doubtless be right; but the great mass 
of the articles on which imposts are 
laid are foreign luxuries, purchased 
only by the rich who can afford them- 
selves the use of them. 

At the present day, if duties were 
imposed only upon articles used by 



246 



McENERl'. 



the rich and high enough to provide 
the revenue needed by the Government, 
there would be absolute prohibition, 
which has been so much discussed as 
the ruling- idea in the bill sent to this 
Senate by the House. 

James Madison, Protectionist. 

In a special message, in May, 1809, 
President Madison said: 

It will be worthy of just and prudent 
care of Congress to make such further 
alterations in the laws as will more espe- 
cially Protect and foster the several 
branches of manufacture which have re- 
cently been instituted or extended by the 
laudable exertions of our citizens. 

The Tariff of 1808 was Protective in 
laying an impost duty on cordage, 
glass, nails, salt, and many manufac- 
tures of iron. Protection of textiles 
and of unmanufactured iron had re- 
ceived no attention, but the Berlin and 
Milan decrees and the English orders 
In council and the declaration of war 
against Great Britain drew attention 
to the necessity of a revenue Tariff 
with Protective features. 

Mr. Madison urged the passage of 
the Tariff act of 1812 "as a means to 
preserve and promote the manufac- 
tures which have sprung into exist- 
ence and attained an unparalleled ma- 
turity during the period of the Euro- 
pean wars." Calhoun and Lowndes 
joined with Clay in a demand that 
Protection to home Industries should 
no longer be secondary to a Tariff for 
revenue only. The Republican party 
of that time, to which the present 
Democratic party is a successor, quoted 
the report of Hamilton to sustain their 
position upon which the earlier Tariff 
acts had been based. 

Protection in the Democratic Tariff of 
1812. 

This position of the Republicans 
caused the Federalists to ignore the 
traditions of their party faith and to 
take the anti-Protection side of the 
controversy. The Democratic Tariff of 
1812 Imposed the highest rates of duty 
since the foundation of the Govern- 
ment until 1842. It was, it is true, a 
war tax, in aid of Democratic support 
of the war. The existing rates 
doubled. Sugar received Protection to 
the extent of 5 cents per pound, coffee 
was taxed 10 cents, tea 36 cents, pig 
Iron 30 per cent, bar iron 30 per cent, 



cotton manufactures 30, woolen 30, and 
silk 25. 

The Tariff act of 1816 was in its 
entirety Protective, rendered necessary 
by the recent war, but its fatility was 
In taking from it Protection after 
three years. In 1819, when Protection 
under the act reached the minimum, 
Great Britain began to flood the coun- 
try with her surplus wares. More 
than twice the quantity needed by this 
country was imported. There was de- 
pression in business, and general 
bankruptcy was the result. Thomas H. 
Benton described the condition of the 
country as follows: 

No price for property, no sale except 
those of the sheriff and marshal, no 
purchaser at execution sales save the 
creditor or some money hoarder, no 
employment for industry, no sale for 
the products of farm, no sound of the 
hammer save that of the auctioneer 
knocking down property. Distress 
was the universal cry of the people; 
relief the universal demand thundered 
at the doors of legislatures — State and 
Federal. 

A Panic When Protection Reached the 
Minimum. 

Relief was offered in the extension 
for seven years of the provisions of 
the Tariff act of 1818. It was abortive. 
A panic lasting for several years fol- 
lowed, and relief became imperative. 
President Monroe urgently recom- 
mended "additional Protection to those 
articles which we are prepared to man- 
ufacture." The Tariff act of 1824 was 
framed. Mr. Calhoun now became the 
leader of the Free-Traders. 

Andrew Jackson and James Bu- 
chanan supported the bill, which recog- 
nized the doctrine of Protection in a 
revenue bill more emphatically than 
any former revenue act. Opposition to 
the bill was more on" sectional lines 
than from any well-defined principle. 
The bill fully recognized the "Amer- 
ican system" as a living principle in 
our politics. Sugar received an import 
duty of 3 cents per pound; coffee was 
taxed 5 cents; tea, 25 cents; salt, 20 
cents; pig iron, 20 per cent; bar iron, 
$30 per ton; glass, 30 per cent and 3 
cents per pound; manufactures of cot- 
ton were taxed 25 per cent, and silk 
25 per cent. 

Andrew Jackson on Protection's Benefits. 

There was such improvement in the 
financial and industrial condition of 



McENERY. 



247 



the country that the supporters of the 
act were encouraged to try further ef- 
forts in the direction of raising the 
revenue, with incidental Protection, a 
necessary and desirable adjunct. In 
the Twentieth Congress the Democrats 
were in the majority, but they were 
divided over the Tariff. Those of the 
North voted with the Whigs and 
passed the Tariff act of 1828. Jackson 
had carried New York, Pennsylvania, 
and Illinois by his Protective Tariff 
record, and the act was in a measure a 
Jackson Tariff law. 

This act also emphasized the "Amer- 
ican" idea, and there w^as Protection in 
every change of the act of 1824. Jack- 
son said of the Protective act of 1824- 
1828, in his message of 1832: 

Our country presents on every side 
marks of prosperity and happiness un- 
equaled, perhaps, in any portion of 
the world. 

The history of Tariff legislation 
shows that the general tendency of 
public opinion is in the direction of a 
Tariff for revenue, and Protection 
necessarily following as an Insepara- 
ble incident. The policy of this bill, 
at least, is for a Protection of Amer- 
ican Industries. That a Tariff bill on 
this principle will be enacted is a cer- 
tainty. 

Louisiana Is Vitally Interested 

in the production of salt, lumber, 
rice, sugar, sulphur, and cotton. The 
pending bill makes no discrimination 
In the arrangement of the schedules 
for revenue against these products. 
Why should she stand idly by and de- 
cline to accept the benefits to be de- 
rived from the necessary levying of 
revenue by impost duties? 

Call it what you will — Protection or 
a revenue Tariff with incidental Pro- 
tection — millions of dollars have to be 
raised and the benefits of Protection 
from it distributed. Why, then, should 
the people of Louisiana resist the 
building of cotton factories, furniture 
factories, the erecting of sawmills, the 
opening and improving of sugar fields, 
and the erection of central factories, 
the opening of salt mines, and hun- 
dreds of other industries that are Just 
now coming into existence? I say, so 
long as it is the policy of this Govern- 
ment to have a Protective law, it 
would be a suicidal policy for the peo- 
ple of Louisiana to decline to demand 



the benefits tendered In a law which 
Is general In the arrangement of its 
schedules and Impartial In the duties it 
Imposes and nonsectional in its char- 
acter. 

The South Vitally Interested. 

The South is more interested In the 
proper levying of a Tariff than any 
other section of the country. Her de- 
velopment and manufacturing Interests 
in the last three decades have been 
marvelous. This has been in spite of 
Free-Trade ideas and the Free-Trade 
policy. Had there been a demand for 
adequate Protection to her cotton 
mills and other industries, her wealth 
would have doubled. Field and fac- 
tory, the spindle and the plow being 
In close relationship, would have 
doubled her productive capacity, which 
have given tenfold value to her lands, 
would have multiplied her population 
with an intelligent and industrious 
people, would have rescued her from 
debt, and there would be now no bor- 
rowing from foreign mortgage syndi- 
cates, where principals are doubled in 
five years by usurious interest. 

Tariff Without Protection Never Conteni' 
plated by the Founders of the Govern- 
ment. 

I stand to-day with Jefferson and 
Jackson on the Tariff issue founded on 
sound constitutional interpretation. 
There Is not a State in the Union 
which, if it had the power, would not 
exercise it to Protect its domestic in- 
terests. It is known to all that this 
absence of self-Protection led to the 
jarring jealousies under the Articles of 
Confederation and resulted in the pres- 
ent power in the Constitution for the 
laying of import duties and the regu- 
lation of commerce by the Federal 
Government and prohibiting their ex- 
ercise of the States. 

There is no restriction in the Consti- 
tution in the exercise of this power 
limiting it to a Tariff for revenue only 
On the contrary, it was the intention 
that the power should be exercised in 
the interest of Protecting the indus- 
tries of each State, which the States 
separately, when they had the power, 
were unable to do. A Tariff for reve- 
nue without Protection was never con- 
templated by the founders of this Gov- 
ernment. There may be difference of 



248 



McENERY. 



opinion as to the schedule rates in a 
Tariff bill, but on the facts presented 
in each case any Democrat has a right 
to exercise his individual opinion for 
the best interests of the country. Nei- 
ther the Democratic party nor the Re- 
publican party has a rig-ht to demand 
that any man shall forfeit his allegi- 
ance to the Constitution by joining a 
party demand for an administration of 
affairs contrary to that Constitution. 

Fearful Consequences of tfie Free-Trade 
Tariff of 1857. 

The Thirty-fourth Congress went 
over to a Free-Trade policy in the pas- 
sage of the Tariff act of March 2, 1857. 
Immediately thereafter foreign goods 
flooded the country, for duties along 
the entire line of imports of leading 
articles were reduced almost to the 
rates of the compromise act of 1833. 

Within six months after the passage 
of the act there was a great panic. 
Ruin was widespread and all branches 
of industry were disastrously affected. 
There were 5,123 failures, and the 
Government had again to borrow 
money for current expenses. The pub- 
lic debt increased $46,000,000, and the 
expenditures exceeded the receipts by 
$77,234,116. President Buchanan, in his 
message, said: 

With unsurpassed plenty in all the 
productions and all the elements of 
natural wealth our manufactures have 
suspended; our public works are re- 
tarded; our private enterprises of dif- 
ferent kinds are abandoned; thousands 
of useful laborers are thrown out of 
employment and reduced to want. We 
have possessed all elements of material 
wealth in abundance, and yet, not- 
withstanding all these advantages, our 
country, in its monetary interests, is 
in a deplorable condition. 

The Tariff act of 1861 increased du- 
ties all along the line. The act was 
framed on just principles to provide a 
needed revenue, and at the same time 
to incorporate and confirm the doctrine 
of Protection, giving a helping hand to 
labor and encouraging home produc- 
tion and manufactures. There were 
several amendments subsequently made 
to the act, all in the line of Protec- 
tion, and rendered necessary by the 
exigencies of war. 

Tariff Does Not Add to Selling Price. 

It Is urged as an argument against 
a Tariff embodying any Protective Idea 



that it will cause an additional price 
to be added to the Protected article 
and thus impose a burden upon the 
consumer. 

In 1790 Mr. Hamilton asserted that — 

Internal competition is an effectual 
corrective of monopoly and in the end 
leads to a lower scale of prices for 
Protected manufactures than prevailed 
for foreign. 

Experience has demonstrated this to 
be correct. It is within the memory 
of many Senators that in certain lines 
of goods European nations practically 
monopolized the trade in this country, 
and we had to pay high prices for 
them. By Protecting the manufactur- 
ers of such goods, they have multiplied 
In this country. They fully equal the 
imported goods, and we now get them 
at a greatly reduced price. They are 
within the reach of the poorest. 

Democrats Wfio Vote for Protection. 

Whenever Congress attempts Tariff 
legislation there are Democrats who 
contend for and vote for the Protec- 
tion of the industries of their States. 
They endeavor to get as high Protec- 
tion as possible, and it is a rare In- 
stance when one offers an amendment 
to reduce the Tariff rate applicable to 
the interests in the State he repre- 
sents. In this way they aid and assist 
in making the Tariff Protective, and 
then vote against it because it is Pro- 
tective. 

A principle can not be violated in 
one particular instance without dis- 
crediting the whole doctrine which it 
supports. It would be more consist- 
ent to vote for the bill, unless in other 
respects it is objectionable. There 
can be no excuse for voting against it 
by those who helped to make it Pro- 
tective because it is of that character. 

I have endeavored to show that Pro- 
tection to American industries is a 
constitutional obligation; that a Tariff 
for revenue only was never contem- 
plated by the fathers of the Republic; 
that revenue and Protection are sepa- 
rate provisions in the Constitution, the 
former being provided for by a dis- 
tinctly constitutional method, but as a 
most convenient means of raising reve- 
nue for the support of the Govern- 
ment a Tariff was resorted to; that the 
constitutional obligation to encourage 
and Protect the industries of the coun- 
try still remain. This is clearly dem- 



McENERY. BEVERTDGE. 



249 



onstrated by the first Tariff law and 
the amendments to the same. 

An Appeal to Southern Senators. 

Mr. President, I want to know from 
the Southern Senators who have voted 
and expect to vote for a Tariff upon 
lumber, what difference they find be- 
tween that and imposing a high Tariff 
on the importation of sugar. They 
have so voted, as they proclaim, in 
order to satisfy the demands of their 
party for the purpose of raising reve- 
nue. Compare the revenue from the 
importation of lumber, amounting, I 
think now, to probably $2,000,000, with 
the $60,000,000 that was brought into 
the Treasury of the United States by 
the tax on sugar. 

Therefore, I appeal to the Southern 
Senators to go beyond their localities 
and abandon their absurd idea and 
theory of a Tariff for revenue only 
and vote for and be liberal in support- 
ing the industries of the United States. 
They have claimed that sugar should 
come in free, practically, because it Is 
one of the prime necessaries of life. 
These gentlemen profess to follow 
Thomas Jefferson in every theory that 
he enunciated, and they hold in sub- 
lime faith every utterance that he 
made. He said repeatedly, and so did 
Washington, that there should be a 
duty upon the necessaries of life, for 
the reason that this country should not 
be dependent upon any foreign gov- 
ernment for necessaries required for 
the use of the people. 

Break Down the Tariff Wall and You 
Break Down Industries. 

Mr. President, other countries have 
expended vast sums of money in order 
to create sugar industries. How much 
has France spent since the time that 
Napoleon first encouraged the cultiva- 
tion of the beet and its manufacture 
into sugar? How much money has 
Germany spent? Millions of dollars; 
and Germany to-day is holding her 
sugar for the purpose of getting a 
market in the United States and de- 
stroying the industries of our own 
country. She is looking not only to 
this country for the Introduction of 
her manufactured sugar, but for all 
her other manufactured goods. I no- 
tice by the papers that there were 
189,000,000 pairs of stockings land- 



ed In the city of New York, every one 
of which will be labeled "Made In Ger- 
many." So it is with her other indus- 
tries. Break down the Tariff wall in 
the Interest of foreigners and the con- 
sequence will be the destruction of our 
own manufactures. 

Mr. President, just as certain as I 
am standing here, if a low Tariff is 
placed upon sugar, so that the Ger- 
mans can reach here with their re- 
fined sugar and the Austrians can 
reach here with their refined sugar, 
and the Italians, who are now ship- 
ping their sugar here with the other 
beet-producing and beet interests in 
Europe, can reach here, I say that, 
within twelve months after the intro- 
duction of that sugar, there will not 
be a single plow running in the cane 
fields of Louisiana, there will not be 
a single beet raised anywhere in the 
beet-raising States, the industry will 
go out of existence and will be en- 
tirely at the mercy of the people who 
will have a monopoly and impose 
higher prices than we now pay for 
sugar. 



Is Not Blind to the Excesses of Pro=- 
tection. 

From the Congressional Record of May 27, 
1909. 

ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE, of Indiana. 
We mean, according to the expres- 
sions of the President, to take the Tar- 
iff entirely off when, as he says. It 
serves no good purpose and when the 
industry has grown by its aid to such 
proportions and such strength that "it 
can stand alone and fight its battles In 
competition with the world." 

I challenge any man upon this side 
of the Chamber, I challenge any man 
in the country, to be a more devoted 
adherent to the great policy of Pro- 
tection than I. I drew it into my 
blood with the earliest moments of my 
life; I have seen its splendid results 
manifested ever since I reached the 
years of comprehension — but I am not 
blind to its excesses. 

I look back with pride and inspira- 
tion upon those who founded and those 
who nourished the Protective policy 
from the time of Washington and 
Hamilton, and then of Clay, who called 
it "the great American system"; and 
then of Lincoln, whom it helped to 



250 



BEVERIDGE. SMITH. 



keep great armies in the field; and 
then to McKinley, and down to the 
days of Taft; and, on the whole, I 
have seen it here, as it has done else- 
where, shower blessings upon all over 
whom it in beneficence hangs. 

Selling Goods Cheaper Abroad. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. In just 
one word, if the Senator from Indiana 
will permit me, I want to say that it 
does not annoy me at all to think 
that goods made in excess of our needs 
in this country may be sold in Europe 
cheaper than at home. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. It does not annoy 
me at all, and it did not annoy the 
President at all. The President gave 
in two or three lines an excellent an- 
swer to that — the answer we all know 
of. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Let me 
give one in one sentence. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. You can give an- 
other one If you want. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. The wages 
that were paid to the men who pro- 
duced the surplus products were the 
wages that are prevalent in our own 
country and not the wages of Europe. 
So that, if we pay the standard Ameri- 
can wage in the manufacture of a 
product to be exported to Europe, I am 
the last man that will complain about 
the price the manufacturer gets for 
it over there. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Nobody ever said 
that anybody was complaining of that; 
nobody ever heard of it. The Senator 
is introducing another subject. What 
the Senator said sounds just as good 
as it is true. I do not think — and my 
admiration for him is unbounded — 
that the Senator has improved very 
much upon the President's explanation. 
Nobody who keeps up with the econo- 
mic conditions of the world complains 
that goods are sold abroad cheaper 
than at home. 

No Free-Trade on the Republican Side. 

It has been said that there is Free- 
Trade on this side of the Chamber. 
No, Mr. President, not a single microbe 
of it. Those who are called "reduc- 
tionists" upon this side, as I have said 
four or five times, believe that they 
are acting in the interest of the Pro- 
tective principle, more fearlessly, and 
with more far-seeing wisdom, than 



those who maintain the old attitude 
that there must be no yielding to con- 
ditions. No; there is no Free-Trade 
here, but will anybody deny that there 
is Protection over there? Of course 
it is there; the votes and some of the 
franker speeclies show it; but as the 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Me- 
Cumber] pointed out the other day, 
the votes on that side show the un- 
wise zeal of the convert rather than 
the seasoned wisdom of the life-long 
Protectionist. • 



Protection's 



'Roll Call' 
States. 



of Southern 



Why, Mr. President, if it were not 
for one great local question. Protec- 
tion would have swept the South in 
the last campaign, as, in my judgment, 
it will sweep the South within two 
campaigns to come. If Protection 
should to-day call the roll of the 
States, I think that you would almost 
find now what certainly Protection will 
find when it calls the roll of the States 
in a few brief years, that the Northern 
States would answer "Here," and, as 
their names are called. Southern States 
will answer "Here"; Tennessee will an- 
swer "Here"; Georgia will answer 
"Here"; Alabama will answer "Here"; 
Florida will answer "Here"; and even 
Mississippi, perhaps, will answer 
"Here." Kentucky and Missouri have 
answered "Here" already; and Okla- 
homa nearly answered "Here" in the 
last election — she will shout "Here" in 
the next. 

I see this great economic system, 
which Henry Clay declared was "the 
American system," invading — no, capti- 
vating — the South, whose people it is 
enriching. If there is any change at 
all, looking into the future. It will be 
that New England may become in- 
creasingly Free-Trade, and that the 
South will become increasingly Pro- 
tectionist. 

Immaterial What Name You Call It. 

It is immaterial to me, Mr. Presi- 
dent, by what name Senators call a 
thing, whether revenue or whether 
Protection, so the result be the 
same. Senators on that side have 
said that they voted for a Tariff on 
iron ore as a revenue duty; Senators 
on this side have, in the same moment, 
declared that they voted for the same 



BEVERIDGE. BURROWS. 



251 



Tariff on the same thing- as a Protec- 
tion duty. 

The Protective tlieory is conquering 
the Democratic party, and perhaps the 
great division of the somewhat distant 
future between parties will cease to be 
that of the Tariff at all, because it will 
come to be universally recognized, 
even by extreme theorists, that the 
Protective Tariff is the settled policy 
of the American Republic, regardless 
of parties; and that parties will then 
divide upon other questions. 

Mr, President, just this word further 
about a Tariff for revenue only. Those 
who have noted — I will not say stud- 
ied — the progress of Tariff movements 
throughout the world must know that 
a Tariff for revenue only has deliber- 
ately been abandoned by every modern 
nation in the world, excepting only 
Great Britain; and that even in Great 
Britain the largest reform that that 
Empire has seen since Cobden's day 
is the present movement for the aban- 
donment of what Mr. Balfour, who is 
leading that movement, calls "the 
moth-eaten and outworn system of a 
Tariff for revenue only," which, he 
says, if continued, will bankrupt the 
United Kingdom. 

Tariff -For-Revenue-Only Countries. 

Nothing is more certain in the future 
than that that mighty movement, 
backed by the progressive producers 
of the United Kingdom, led by such 
men as Chamberlain, their theories 
voiced by such mighty intellects as 
Balfour, will succeed within less than 
a decade. They themselves know 
that so thoroughly that out of their 
own private pockets the manufactur- 
ers of Great Britain have established 
a great board of experts to prepare a 
Protective Tariff bill to be ready 
against the day of their success. And 
it is a literal fact of history that no 
reform movement in the English- 
speaking world has made such rapid 
progress as the Protective theory Is 
making In Great Britain. 

Outside of Great Britain I believe 
the only countries to-day — and I will 
be glad to be corrected if I am wrong 
— that adhere to a Tariff for revenue 
only are China, Turkey, Afghanistan, 
Beluchistan, Abyssinia, and such other 
like progressive countries. All others 
are Protective countries.. In Germany 



the system of Protection sprang up, 
and it did for her what it did for us. 
It built her factories, it opened her 
mines, it developed her industries, it 
made her rich; and then, because of 
her narrow confines, she saw that she 
must capture the markets of the world, 
and with the methods of the studious 
German mind she took and developed 
our single Protective system Into a 
double Protective system — a system 
that .gives one Tariff to countries 
which will not grant her concessions, 
and a better one to those that do; a 
system so advanced that in ten years 
it has given Germany almost the lead- 
ing place in the world of foreign 
trade. 

Republican Party Will March to Victory. 

Some Senator said something here a 
few moments ago about divisions In 
the Republican party. I think it was 
my friend from Michigan who said 
that. I do not know that I can TDetter 
close than by saying that nobody with- 
in our party can have, and nobody 
without our party need have, any 
alarm for our party future; because 
when all is done it will be found that 
excesses have been reduced and justice 
established, all by one broad, general 
principle, and an equal desire among 
us to do exactly what is right from 
our different points of view. And, so 
when the day of battle comes, the Re- 
publican party will be found disci- 
plined, compact, aggressive, marching 
forward in the future, as it has in the 
past, to victory for itself and to bless- 
ings for the Nation. 



If the Sugar Trust Were the Only 
Interest Involved, the Sugar Tariff 
Would Find Few Friends. 

Froyn the Congressional Record of May 27, 
1909. 

JULIUS CAESAR BURROWS, of 
Michigan. A general assault has been 
made on this schedule, chiefly because 
of the duty on refined sugar and the 
supposed connection of the American 
Sugar Refining Company, commonly 
called "the trust," with the sugar In- 
dustry, and no assault made has been 
more violent and aggressive than that 
made by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. 
Bristow], who has just taken his seat. 

Let me say at the outset that the 



252 



BURROWS. 



course of the American Sugar Refining 
Company, as recently disclosed, has 
been so scandalous and reprehensible 
as to forfeit public confidence in its 
Integrity and business methods and 
bring reproach upon the entire refin- 
ing industry. 

If the American Sugar Refining Com- 
pany was the only interest involved 
in this controversy, it would find few 
friends here or elsewhere. But there 
are other interests to be considered. 
There are 64 beet-sugar factories in 
the United States, each a refinery, 
which turned out in 1908 425,884 tons, 
or 851,786,000 pounds of refined sugar, 
and any blow inflicted upon the Amer- 
ican Sugar Refining Company would 
necessarily injuriously affect the cane 
planters of the South and the great 
and growing beet-sugar industry of 
the North and West, in which the 
farmers and planters of 20 States are 
directly interested, and would, in a 
broader view, affect all the people of 
all classes and of all the States by 
exposing this agricultural industry as 
a whole to serious and disastrous for- 
eign competition, resulting not only In 
arresting its further development, but 
speedily overthrowing the industry it- 
self. It is in behalf of this industry I 
propose to speak. 

The One Great Republican Doctrine. 

Mr. President, if there is any one 
doctrine to which the Republican party 
adheres with greater fidelity than an- 
other, it is the policy of Protection to 
American industries and American la- 
bor. In season^and out of season, in 
victory or defeat, it has adhered with 
unyielding tenacity to this cardinal 
principle of its political faith. 

In levying duties, upon imports the 
Republican party has always taken 
care to so adjust rates as not only to 
raise revenue for the needs of govern- 
ment, but at the same time create and 
develop new industries which in their 
unfolding would give enlarged employ- 
ment to labor, increased opportunity 
for the investment of capital, open 
fresh avenues for human endeavor, and 
promote the general welfare of the 
American people. 

To this end new enterprises have 
always been the objects of special care 
and solicitude, and under this policy 
numborlf'ss industries have been crea- 
ted and established. 



One of the latest and most striking 
illustrations of this policy is to be 
found in the tin-plate industry. By 
the act of 1890 the duty on tin plate 
was advanced for the avowed purpose 
of "making the duty on foreign tin 
plate high enough to insure its manu- 
facture in this country." It accom- 
plished that result. At that time there 
were only four mills in the United 
States, producing but 4,000 tons of 
tin plate, while our annual consump- 
tion was more than 300,000 tons. In 
1889, the year before the imposition 
of this duty, we imported $21,000,000 
worth of tin plate, and ten years later, 
in 1899, only $2,000,000 worth. By the 
last census report it appears that the 
number of establishments has increased 
to 36 and the value of output to 
$39,283,360. This is but one of the 
many industries brought into existence 
through the fostering care of the 
American Government. 

Sugar an Important Agricultural Industry. 

The pending proposition has to do 
with another industry of vital concern 
to the American people, involving the 
production of a prime necessity of life, 
and directly aff.ecting the great agri- 
cultural interests of the United States. 
We are the largest consumers of sugar 
of any nation on the globe, totaling, in 
1908, 3,072,589 tons. Of this enormous 
consumption we produced last year 
from beets 380,000 tons; from cane, 
390,888 tons; from maple, 11,000 tons; 
and from molasses sugar, 5,910 tons, 
a total domestic product of 787,798 
tons. In addition, we received from 
Hawaii 453.250 tons, from Porto Rico 
185,085 tons, and from the Philippine 
Islands 45,089 tons, making an aggre- 
gate from the States and our insular 
possessions of 1,471.222 tons, leaving a 
balance to be supplied from foreign 
countries necessary to meet the home 
demand of 1,601,307 tons. 

The problem confronting us to-day 
Is whether we shall produce this su- 
gar from our domestic beets and cane, 
or abandon our fields, continue to pay 
tribute to foreign countries, and send 
abroad $100,000,000 annually to supply 
ourselves with this piime necessity of 
food, every dollar of which ought to 
be kept at home to enrich our farm- 
ers and diversify our agricultural 
products. 



BURROWS. 



253 



Developmeni of Beet Sugar Production. 

What would it mean, may I ask, to 
the American people, to American capi- 
tal, and American labor, and particu- 
larly to the American farmer and 
planter, to develop this industry to 
the full extent of producing our en- 
tire consumption of sugar? 

It appears from the report of the 
Secretary of Agriculture that we have 
already established in this country 64 
factories In 16 different States and 
Territories, representing an Invested 
capital of $70,000,000. 

I have a table showing the amount 
of beets raised in 1897 and in 1909, 
which I ask leave to insert In the Rec- 
ord without reading, from which It 
appears that in 1897 the total of sugar 
beets harvested was 389,000 tons In 
round numbers; in 1908, 3,414,000 tons. 
The amount paid to the farmer for 
beets in 1897 was $1,596,000, and in 
1908, $18,269,000. Without going into 
details further, I will state as the re- 
sult of the ten years' trial since the 
beginning of the industry we have 
produced in this country 24,245,000 tons 
of beets and paid to the farmers $121,- 
000,000. 

Beyond this, Mr. President, contem- 
plate what it would mean to our peo- 
ple if this industry could be so devel- 
oped as to supply the entire demand 
for the American market. We would 
not only keep at home the $100,000,000 
annually sent abroad for foreign sugar, 
but it would mean the building of 300 
additional factories, which would re- 
quire In their construction, equipment, 
and operation $330,000,000. 

To supply all our factories, then, 
with the raw material would require 
annually the production of 19,017,000 
tons of beets, for which the American 
farmers would receive yearly the sum 
of $102,813,000. To this must be added 
an outlay for coal, transportation, mill 
supplies, and labor aggregating more 
than $225,000,000 annually. It will not 
do to say that such a development of 
the industry is not attainable. It has 
been demonstrated that we have a vast 
area of territory, stretching from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific, especially adapt- 
ed to the cultivation of sugar beets, 
and it Is the expressed opinion of the 
present able Secretary of Agriculture 
that if the present Protection accorded 
to this industry should be continued 



with adequate Protection it will not 
be ten years before we will produce 
from our farms and factories all the 
sugar required for our home consump- 
tion. 

The development of this Industry to 
the extent already attained Is attrib- 
utable in a large measure. If not en- 
tirely, to the Protective policy. 

Legislative Encouragement. 

The Tariff act of 1890, bearing the 
name of its illustrious author, pro- 
vided a bounty of 2 cents per pound 
annually for every pound of sugar pro- 
duced from cane or beets or other 
named sources in the United States. 
The Committee on Ways and Means in 
submitting that bill to the considera- 
tion of the House of Representatives 
accompanied it with a report prepared 
by William McKinley himself, in which 
it was confidently predicted that the 
Protection accorded the sugar industry 
of 2 cents per pound would insure the 
establishment of this industry and the 
ultimate domestic production of all the 
sugar required for our home consump- 
tion. 

In presenting the measure to the 
House of Representatives, Mr. McKin- 
ley declared: 

While giving the people free and 
cheap sugar we have at the same time 
given to our producers, with their in- 
vested capital, absolute and compete 
Protection against the, cheaper sugar 
produced by cheaper labor of other 
countries. 

Under the stimulating Influence of 
this legislation, the sugar industry 
took a fresh impetus and the output 
of sugar increased from 131,000 tons in 
1890 to 337,000 tons in 1894, while the 
product of beet sugar alone advanced 
from 3,000 tons in 1890 to 20,000 tons 
In 1894, in the brief period of four 
years. 

Sugar under tfie Dingley Tariff. 

In 1897 the Tariff was again revised 
and the sugar industry given special 
encouragement. A measure formulated 
by Nelson Dingley and sanctioned by 
President McKinley would necessarily 
inspire confidence In the purposes of 
the dominant party to see to it that so 
long as that party remained in power 
the sugar industry would be fostered 
and encouraged. The people had a 
right to rely upon the assurances thus 
voluntarily given. Mr. Dingley in pre- 



254 



BURROWS. 



senting the measure to the House of 
Representatives accompanied it by a 
report in which he called special at- 
tention to the "increase of the duty 
on sugar," and set forth in no uncer- 
tain words the benefits expected to 
accrue to the farmers and planters of 
the United States. I quote from that 
report: 

We have increased the duty on sugar 
from the 40 per cent ad valorem im- 
posed by the present Tariff on raw su- 
gars to 1.63 cents, with a countervail- 
ing duty on all sugars equivalent to 
the net export bounty paid by any 
country in order to increase our reve- 
nue and at the same time afford suf- 
ficient Protection to enable our own 
farmers and planters to ultimately 
produce whatever sugar we may re- 
quire for consumption. The produc- 
tion of cane sugar is a large, and, 
under proper Protection, a growing in- 
dustry now. 

The production of beet sugar in at 
least 23 States of our Union, which 
only seven years ago was regarded as 
of doubtful promise, is no longer an 
experiment, but a demonstrated suc- 
cess with such Protection as we rec- 
ommend, which is less than those 
bounties given at the inception of su- 
gar production by Germany, France, 
and other European countries, which 
now produce about two-thirds of the 
world's sugar. 

The time has come when every ef- 
fort should be made to open up new 
crops to our farmers, and thus diversi- 
fy and promote our agriculture; and 
no crop in sight affords more hope of 
.success or greater advantages to the 
whole country. 

To open up such a new and valuable 
crop to our farmers is a boon which 
Congress should not hesitate to give, 
especially at a time when it can be 
done in the interest of revenue. 

How Best to Clip the Wings of tfie Sugar 
Trust. 

Mr. Dingley, in presenting the bill to 
the House, called special attention to 
that provision of the measure relating 
to the duty on sugar and the advan- 
tages sure to follow its enactment 
into law, saying: 

It should be borne in mind that the 
general increase of duty on sugar 
made in the proposed Tariff has been 
made not only to Increase the reve- 
nue, but also to further encourage the 
production of beet sugar in this coun- 
try and furnish a new crop for the 
farmers, who are being sorely pressed 
as to our large wheat surplus by Rus- 
sian and South American competition. 
I believe that the time has come when 
the production of our own sugar from 
the beet ought to be and can be suc- 
cessfully entered upon, and thus the 
seventy-five millions — soon to be one 
hundred millions — sent abroad for the 
purchase of our sugar ultimately dis- 



tributed here to our own farmers. Al- 
ready, indeed, it has been demonstra- 
ted that we can successfully produce 
beet sugar here, and the proposed duty 
placed on that article will gradually 
bring this about, while for the time 
being affording increased revenue. 

Certainly nothing can be done to so 
successfully clip the wings of the Su- 
gar Trust as to develop our beet-sugar 
industry. Sugar-beet factories turn 
out their product in a refined form, and 
thus become the efficient competitors 
of other refiners. The successful es- 
tablishment of the sugar-beet indus- 
try in even half of the 26 States 
which can and will successfully grow 
sugar beets under the proposed Tariff 
would speedily end any sugar trust, 
and would at the same time confer im- 
mense benefit on our farmers and on 
all of our people. 

Beef Sugar in the State of Michigan. 

Mr. President, I have already shown 
the extent to which this Industry has 
been established in this country at 
large, and its possibilities for the fu- 
ture, but I desire to call special atten- 
tion to the industry in my own State, 
with which I am personally somewhat 
familiar. 

Encouraged by the inducements held 
out by the National Government, the 
people of Michigan entered upon the 
culture of sugar beets with alacrity 
at\d enthusiasm, devoting their acre- 
age and their fortunes to the establish- 
ment and upbuilding of an industry 
which has already been of groat ad- 
vantage to our farmers and given 
promise of rapidly increasing benefits. 

Prior to 1898 there was not a beet- 
sugar factory in the State of Michigan, 
and to-day there are 16, requiring for 
their construction and equipment $15,- 
000,000, and their successful operation 
necessitating last year the planting of 
81,073 acres of beets, producing 611,295 
tons of beets of the average value in 
the United States of $5.35 per ton, 
yielding an income to our farmers In a 
single year of $3,270,000. 

But the advantage of this American 
industry does not stop here. To run 
the 16 factoriei! in Michigan a full cam- 
paign of one hundred days required, 
last year, 193,500 tons of coal, costing 
$."^03,100: 68,700 tons of lime rock, 
worth $144,270; 8,244 tons of coke, val- 
ued at $49,464; 350,000 pounds of sul- 
phur, $8,000; 208,000 yards of filter 
cloth, costing $20,500; 36,000 gallons of 
oil, for which w? paid $7,500; cheml- 



BURROWS. 



255 



eals worth $27,500; 1,224.000 sugar 
bags, valued at $134,640; and cooper- 
age stock of the value of $125,000. 

In addition to this, more than $75.- 
000 were expended for miscellaneous 
supplies necessarily used In running 
these factories. Strike down this in- 
dustry- and you cut off all these other 
additional sources of profitable em- 
ployment, and by so much contract the 
field of industrial activities. 

But this is not all. Four thousand 
men were employed In our factories. 
to whom was paid more than $900,000 
in wages, and this exclusive of farm 
laborers. The railroads received for 
freight charges for hauling the incom- 
ing and outgoing product $750,000. 
while the value of the product of beet 
sugar produced in our State last year, 
estimated at 4^ cents per pound, was 
$7,677,000. 

Foreign Competition as a Remedy for 
Trusts. 

But the suggestion is sometimes 
made that the trusts can be destroyed 
by exposing them to unrestrained for- 
eign competition. What a remedy! 
Under such a law all the foreign manu- 
facturer would need to do to break up 
an American industry would be to come 
here and establish it, form a combine, 
and then invoke the enforcement of 
the law against trusts and combines, 
and so secure the American mai'ket 
for the foreign producer. But I will 
not enlarge upon it. 

The folly and injustice of the at- 
tempt through customs duties to de- 
stroy trusts and combinations was 
never more forcefully and completely 
X answered than by ex-President Roose- 
velt in his letter of acceptance of Sep- 
tember 12, 1904, in which he says: 

At the outset it is worth while to 
say a word as to the attempt to iden- 
tify the question of Tariff revision or 
Tariff reduction with a solution of the 
trust question. This is always a sign 
of desire to avoid any real effort to 
deal adequately with the trust ques- 
tion. * * * 

The question of Tariff revision, 
speaking broadly, stands wholly apart 
from the question of dealing with the 
trusts.' 

I ask the Senators who believe In the 
efficacy of destroying trusts by lower- 
ing or removing duties to give heed to 
this: 



Ex-President Roosevelt on the Tariff and 

Trust Question. 

No change in Tariff duties can have 
any substantial effect in solving the 
so-called "trust problem." Certain 
g'reat trusts or corporations are wholly 
unaffected by the Tariff. Almost all 
the others that are of any importance 
have, as a matter of fact, numbers of 
smaller American competitors, and. of 
course, a change in the Tariff v/hich 
would work injury to the large cor- 
porations would work not merely in- 
jury but destruction to its smaller 
competitors; and equally, of course, 
such a change would mean disaster to 
all the wage-workers connected with 
either the large or the siuall corpora- 
tions. From the standpoint of those 
interested in the solution of the trust 
problem such a change would there- 
fore inerely inean that the trust was 
relieved of the competition of its 
weaker American competitors, and 
thrown only into competition with for- 
eign competitors; and that the first 
effort to meet this nev/ competition 
would be made by cutting down wages, 
and would therefore be primarily at 
the cost of labor. In the case of some 
of our greatest trusts such a change 
might confer upon them a positive 
benefit. Speaking broadly, it is evident 
that the changes in the Tariff will 
affect the Trusts for weal or woe sim- 
ply as they affect the whole country. 
The Tariff affects trusts only as it af- 
fects all other interests. It makes all 
these interests, large or small, profit- 
able; and its benefits can be taken 
from the large only under penalty of 
taking them from the small also. 
* * * 

It is but ten years since the last 
attempt w^as made by means of lower- 
ing the Tariff to prevent some people 
from prospering too much. The at- 
tempt was entirely successful. The 
Tariff law of that year was among the 
causes v/hich in that year and for 
Sonne time afterwards effectually pre- 
vented anj^body from prospering too 
much, and labor from prospering at all. 
Undoubtedly it would be possible at 
the present time to prevent any of 
the trusts from remaining prosperous 
by the simple expedient of making 
such a sweeping change in the Tariff 
as to paralyze the industries of the 
country. The trusts would cease to 
prosper; but their smaller competitors 
would be ruined, and the wage-work- 
ers would starve, while it would not 
pay the farmer to haul his products 
to market. The evils connected with 
the trusts can be reached only by ra- 
tional effort, step by step, along the 
lines taken by Congress and the Exec- 
utive during the past three years. If 
a Tariff law is passed under which 
the country prospers, as the country 
has prospered under the present Tariff 
law, then all classes will share in the 
prosperity. If a Tariff law is passed 
aimed at preventing the prosperity of 
some of our people, it is as certain as 
anything can be that this aim will be 
achieved only by cutting down the 
prosperity of all our people. 



256 



BURROWS. ALDRTOH. SMOOT. CUMMINS. 



I have only to say In conclusion, so 
far as I am concerned I am for this 
schedule as It stands. Let us pass It 
as it is, giving Protection to a great 
American industry while unlawful coro- 
binations are being broken up and de- 
stroyed by the irresistible force of law 
and so permit the industry to go on 
untrammeled and unimpeded in Its 
legitimate development. 



Income Tax as a Substitute for a 
Tariff for Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of May 27, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. I say to every friend of this 
measure, sitting on either side of this 
Chamber, that If we now take up the 
question of an income tax and proceed 
to the consideration of it to the exclu- 
sion of all the Tariff schedules, and if 
we adopt a tax which will levy on the 
people of the United States $80,000,000, 
I shall be ready to join the Senator 
from Texas in revising the schedules. 
It would be our imperative duty to 
revise them, not In the Interests of 
Protection, but for the opposite reason. 

Mr. BACON. The Senator means in 
the interests of the consumer. 

Mr. ALDRICH. If Senators sitting 
on this side of the Chamber desire de- 
liberately to abandon the Protective 
policy and to impose an income tax for 
the purpose plainly avowed by the 
Senator from Texas to reduce and de- 
stroy the Protective system, I will say 
to those Senators that I do not intend 
to consent to that programme so far 
as I am concerned; and that I intend, 
so far as it is within my power, to 
proceed with the consideration of the 
bill; and that when the schedules are 
completed we will then take up the 
propositions Involved in the Income 
tax and consider those. But until, un- 
der the leadership of the Senator from 
Texas, this bill is taken from my 
charge, I intend to press its considera- 
tion, and I say that to every Senator. 
I do not intend to be swerved from 
that duty by any suggestions from 
any source. 



Tariff Rates on Sugar. 

From the Congressional Record of May 28, 
1909. 

REED SMOOT, of Utah. Mr. Presi- 
dent, the beet-sugar industry of this 
country twenty years ago did not ex- 
ist; to-day it has reached splendid 
proportions; within two decades it is 
capable of development until every 
pound of sugar consumed upon our 
soil shall be produced by American 
workmen In American-built mills from 
beets grown by American farmers. 
This Industry sprang into existence 
under the Protection of the McKInley 
Tariff; It has been fostered and devel- 
oped under existing law; and. In my 
humble judgment, it must surely and 
speedily perish unless there shall be 
extended to it a reasonable Protection 
until such time as, through the preva- 
lence of superior methods, it can com- 
bat single-handed and successfully in 
the markets of the world. Senators 
can but agree that there is no Ameri- 
can industry not fully developed which 
holds out to the farmer, the mechanic, 
and the laborer greater prospects of 
profitable and abundant employment, 
and to the consumer a greater certain- 
ty of buying that which he consumes 
at a low price from his neighbor and 
compatriot. 

Mr. CUMMINS. If the beet-sugar 
men would so develop their properties 
that they could supply all the refined 
sugar used by the people of the United 
States, with a duty of $1.90 or $1.95 
upon refined sugar, do you not believe 
that that would be the best possible 
condition that could be created in this 
business? 

Mr. SMOOT. Yes, Mr. President. I 
will say to the Senator I certainly do; 
and I believe 

We Can Produce All the Sugar We Use. 

And it could be done, providing the 
duty on foreign sugars coming into 
this country is maintained. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Precisely. 

Mr. SMOOT. And I believe that if it 
was distinctly understood in the Uni- 
ted States that the present rate of 
duty would be maintained for a quar- 
ter of a century, by the end of that 
quarter of a century we could produce 
all the sugar consumed in this country. 



SMOOT. FOSTER. 



257 



Beet Sugar Factories Noi Controlled By 
Trust. 

There is not a particle of evidence 
either before the Ways and Means 
Committee or the Finance Committee 
to substantiate the assertion that the 
sug-ar trust owns a majority of the 
stock In the beet-sugar factories of 
the United States; in fact, there is con- 
siderable evidence to the contrary. 

Mr. President, my argument is along 
the line that the beet-sugar companies 
have $70,000,000 in capital stock, that 
all of the interest the American Sugar 
Refining Company has in stock of oth- 
er companies is about $22,000,000, and 
that, therefore, it is impossible for 
them to control 51 per cent of the 
capital stock of the beet-sugar compa- 
nies. If the Senator wants any fur- 
ther evidence, I have affidavits from 
sugar factories in this country stating 
that the trust do not control 51 per 
cent of their stock. 

I have made no argument in favor 
of the trust. I do not speak one word 
of commendation of the trust. But 
when statements have been made here 
that affect not only the trust, but af- 
fect the beet-sugar industry and the 
cane-sugar industry of the country, I 
think It is proper to call the attention 
of the Senate to them, and in doing so 
I should not be charged with defend- 
ing the trust. 

To Curb the Power of the Trust. 

If any Senator wishes to curb the 
power of the sugar trust, let him 
join in enacting and in maintaining as 
long as necessary such a Tariff on su- 
gar as will encourage the development 
of our domestic sugar industry to the 
point where we shall produce within 
our borders all the sugar we consume. 

To produce oiir supply of sugar 
from home-grown beets would require 
from 350 to 400 beet-sugar factories. 
Does any one dream that such a num- 
ber of concerns could be consolidated 
in a trust? As the senior Senator from 
Iowa has well said, "You can not form 
a trust unless you can control the raw 
material." The Secretary of Agricul- 
ture, in his report to the Senate April 
26, 1909, says that we have 274,000,000 
acres of sugar-beet land in the United 
States, and If 1 acre in 200 of this land 
is devoted to the cultivation of beets 
our yield of sugar would equal our en- 



tire consumption. With such a boun- 
tiful opportunity for securing the raw 
material from which to make sugar It 
would be impossible to form a beet- 
sugar trust. The surest way to limit 
the power of the sugar trust is to en- 
courage the erection of beet-sugar fac- 
tories whose output — granulated sugar, 
a finished product — is sold direct to 
the people in competition with sugar 
refined by the trust. 

The people will get their sugar 
cheaper than if it is refined by one or 
two corporations from imported raws. 
An enormous drain on our national 
resources will be saved. A great na- 
tional industry will be established, 
thousands of workmen will find em- 
ployment in these factories, and hun- 
dreds of thousands of farmers will 
grow the beets from which we will 
make our own sugar. The issue is clear- 
cut and well-defined. Shall half a dozen 
refining companies which can be easily 
combined in a trust refine our sugar 
from imported raws, for which we 
shall send abroad from $100,000,000 to 
$200,000,000 yearly, or shall this sugar 
be made from home-grown beets by 
350 factories which can not be com- 
bined in a trust and this money kept 
at home? The reduction of the pro- 
posed Tariff rates will accomplish the 
first result; the plan offered by the 
Finance Committee will accomplish the 
second. 



Would Bar Out Sugar from the Phil- 
ippines. 

From the Congressional Record of May 28, 
1909. 
MURPHY J. FOSTER, of Louisiana. 
I am very much interested In what the 
Senator is stating, and to a certain ex- 
tent I agree with him. I will join 
hands with him in keeping out, as far 
as possible, every pound of sugar com- 
ing from those islands. There is a 
provision in the bill which authorizes 
the importation free of duty of two 
or three hundred thousand tons of 
sugar from the Philippine Islands. Of 
course, I do not propose to ask the 
Senator how he will vote upon that 
proposition; but it looks to me as 
though voting against that provision 
and defeating it would go a far way in 
the direction of remedying the evil 
of which the Senator complains. But 



258 



FOSTER. CUMMINS. TILLMAN. McCUMBER. 



1 



what remedy will the Senator suggest 
as to the probable percentage, as he 
has stated, between the cane-producing 
countries of the Orient and the beet- 
producing people of this country? 

Will Be Another Blow Inflicied upon the 
Beef-Sugar Industry. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I do 
not intend to suggest any remedy. 

I believe, if we admit 300,000 tons of 
Philippine sugar free, it will be another 
blow inflicted upon the beet-sugar inter- 
ests of the United States. 

I for one believe in the picture painted 
by the senior Senator from Michigan 
[Mr. Burrows] yesterday. Driven to 
choice, I am compelled to select as the 
beneficiary of our legislation, so far as 
my voice and my vote are concerned, the 
beet-sugar manufacturer, and to look 
primarily to the development of that 
business in the United States. 

Entire Demand Should Be Supplied With- 
in Our Own Territory. 

It is unquestionably true that we have 
a territory highly fitted for the produc- 
tion of sugar beets sufllcient to supply 
every pouird of sugar now used or that 
will be used by the American people. I 
believe that we ought to supply within 
our own territory the entire demand of 
the American people. The ideal position, 
as it seems to me, is enough beet-sugar 
manufactories to make 3,000,000 tons of 
sugar, with a competition between them 
that will reduce the price to a fair 
American level. 

If we intend to accomplish that. If 
that is the end for which we are striv- 
ing, then we ought to look carefully into 
the general framework of this schedule, 
for I believe, and I assert, that, adjusted 
as it is, it gives the beet-sugar manu- 
facturer into the hands and puts him at 
the mercy of the cane-sugar refiner, and 
that there can be no great development 
of the beet-sugar interest, and that there 
will be no such development as I have 
mentioned, until you give to the beet- 
sugar manufacturer an advantage that he 
does not have under the schedule. 

South Carolina Senator Favors Protec- 
tion. 

Mr. TILLMAN. Under our fostering 
Tariff legislation we can get all the 
.sugar we want from Cuba and Hawaii 
and Porto Rico without any beet sugar at 



all; but, under the Tariff, beet sugar is 
now entering more and more largely 
every year into our consumption; and 
under the Protection which the Senator 
wishes to give it — and I am willing — we 
shall have beet sugar grow by leaps and 
bounds, until we shall make a great deal 
more than we do now — several hundred 
thousand tons additional every year. 

I see that during the winter, or what 
they call "the campaign of 1905-6," there 
were produced in this country 625,000,000 
pounds of sugar from beets, and in the 
campaign of 1906-7 there were produced 
967.000,000 pounds of sugar from beets, 
showing an increase of over 300,000,000 
pounds, and that is nearly 50 per cent; 
so that if there was a little period of 
depression, all the figures are here, and 
the increase was not so great during the 
preceding five years. In 1901-2 it was 
369,000,000 pounds; in 1902-3,436,000.000 
pounds; in 1903-4, 481,000,000 pounds; In 
1904-5, 484,000,000 pounds; showing that 
there was not much progress during those 
four years. But It leaped up to 625,000,- 
000 pounds in 1905. and the following 
year 967,000,000. 



In Less Than Twenty Years Canada 
Will Be the Wheat Granary of the 
Entire World. 

From the Congressional Record of May sS, 
1909. 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North Da- 
kota. We are making this Tariff with 
the hope and the expectation that it will 
continue in force for at least a decade. 
I know our friends on the other side say 
they will revise it themselves in>less time 
than that. I am not prepared to say they 
are not right. I sometimes think that the 
American people have got to learn a 
fearful lesson about every fifteen years 
in order to bring them back to safe, eco- 
nomic principles. 

But I hope we shall not have to take 
another lesson such as we had during 
the last anti-Republican administration. 
The punishment is altogether too severe 
for the rriild offense of lack of memory 
or good judgment. 

To-day we are exporting wheat, oats, 
barley, and rye. Eleven years from to- 
day, in 1920, we shall in all probability 
not be exporting a bushel of either of 
these cereals. The last year we raised 
about 650,000,000 bushels of wheat, and 
western Canada, adjoining my State and 



McCUMBER. 



259 



the western part of the United States, 
raised about 125.000,000 bushels. Ten 
years from to-day we may maintain our 
production of wheat to, say, 650.000,000, 
possibly 700,000,000 bushels, and by that 
time Canada, immediately north of the 
United States, will probably raise from 
five hundred to seven hundred million 
bushels of wheat. 

What will happen then? We shall be 
importing wheat in less than ten years, 
and on the other side of an imaginary 
line six hundred to seven hundred mil- 
lion bushels of Canadian wheat will be 
ready to find its nearest market in the 
United States. Then, in my judgment, 
not even a duty of 30 cents a bushel is 
going to keep it out of the United States, 
and there will be a considerable impor- 
tation to this country. 

The value of wheat will steadily In- 
crease as the population increases, and 
the ratio of production of wheat to popu- 
lation will decrease as the population 
increases. Therefore 25 cents per bushel 
at that time will, in my opinion, not be 
adequate Protection. 

Now, I want to call the attention of 
Senators to a map [exhibiting] of the 
United States and Canada, and probably 
I can give them something of an idea of 
-what the wheat production of western 
Canada will mean before 1920. Here is a 
tract of country [indicating], about 1,200 
miles by 800 miles, interspersed with 
lakes, rivers, and small bodies of timber, 
nearly every acre of which, out- 
side of the small mountainous portion, is 
capable of producing all kinds of cereals 
except corn, and probably that can be 
raised in some sections. As far north 
as the sixtieth parallel of latitude [indi- 
cating] grain is being raised to-day, and 
wheat is being raised fully 100 miles 
north of that line. 

When the American Wheat Grower Will 
Need More Protection. 

I have lately been over that country. 
I know something about it. I know that 
the rainfall is a great deal more than it 
is on the American, side west of that vast 
section and east of the mountains. I do 
not believe that the soil has the lasting 
.jtuality of the soil in the United States, 
but I do know that in less than twenty 
years this section of Canada will be the 
wheat granary of the entire world, and 
I believe that in making this Tariff we 
should take into consideration this most 
important fact, 



I want to call attention to another fact, 
and that is that all of the great trans- 
continental lines of Canada are crossing 
this section and are building their spurs 
on both sides for hundreds of miles. Here 
[indicating] is the Canadian Pacific tra- 
versing it; here [indicating] is the Grand 
Trunk, reaching far to the north; here 
[indicating] is the Canadian Northern 
traversing the same section; and every 
one, with their smaller lines or feeders, 
is bringing every section of this coun- 
try convenient to railwaysu So, Mr. 
President, we may reasonably expect 
that in less than ten years there may 
be raised as much wheat in this great 
Northwest as there is raised in the 
United States. 

Proof that the American Farmer Does 
Get Protection. 

A number of Senators have reiterated 
several times that the farmer can not be 
benefited by a duty on his products so 
long as he is exporting them; but, Mr, 
President, any man who has lived in my 
State for the last ten or twelve years 
and on one side of an imaginary line has 
regularly seen the price of wheat from 
12 to 22 cents a bushel more than it is 
upon the opposite side of that line is 
pretty well convinced that there is some- 
thing in the matter of American Pro- 
tection — that he does get Protection, 

I wired a few days ago to a place in 
North Dakota called "Pembina," which 
is on the Canadian border line, opposite 
to Emerson, in Manitoba, to get the price 
of grain at those two points — and remem- 
ber that all of this time both the Cana- 
dian and American grain were being ex- 
ported. I received a telegram in reply 
giving the respective prices for October 
in each year from 1904 and 1908, inclu- 
sive. In 1904 the American price was $1 
and the Canadian price 78 cents, or 22 
cents a bushel in our favor; in October, 
1905, the Pembina price was 70 cents and 
the Emerson price 64 cents, or 6 cents a 
bushel in our favor; in 1906 the Pembina 
price was 65 cents and the Emerson 
price 59, or 6 cents in favor of the Ameri- 
can side; in October, 1907, the Pembina 
price was $1.04 and the Emerson price 
94 cents, or 10 cents in our favor; and 
in October, 1908, the Pembina price was 
93 cents and the Emerson price 81 cents, 
or 12 cents a bushel in favor of the 
American side. 

^r. President, those are the conditions 



260 



BRISTOW. SMITH. SUTHERLAND. 



when we are raising wheat for export; 
but I want to show now that it will be 
impossible for the American people to be 
exporting in 1920. 



Cuban Reciprocity Benefits the Cu- 
bans Very Little, and Is a Heavy 
Cost to the United States. 

From the Congressional Record of May 29, 
1909. 

JOSEPH L. BRISTOW, of Kansas. I 
want to say now that there is not a 
Senator here who is more interested in 
preserving the sugar-producing industry 
in the United States than I am. There 
has been a studied effort by those in 
charge of this bill to put the Republicans 
who are termed "progressives" in the at- 
titude of making an assault upon the 
Protective- Tariff system. I am a Re- 
publican and am as earnestly devoted to 
the fundamental principles of the party 
as any Member of this body. I am a 
Protectionist because I believe it is a 
wise policy. 

Whenever we have ascertained the dif- 
ference in the cost of the unit of pro- 
duction here and abroad, it is our duty to 
impose a Tariff equal to that difference, 
so as to give the American industry an 
ample opportunity to compete with for- 
eign industries of a similar character; 
but when you advance the duty beyond 
that mark, then it ceases to be a legiti- 
mate Protective duty. We are not justi- 
fied in maintaining a duty for the pur- 
pose of maintaining prices beyond that 
point, because then, instead of sustaining 
an established industry, you are gratify- 
ing the greed of the men who are in 
control of the industry. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. The Senator 
from Kansas, I think, and I will agree 
entirely that in its inception the beet- 
sugar-producing industry in this country 
was a direct and threatening menace to 
the American Sugar Refining Company. 
Is not that correct? 

Mr. BRISTOW- In its inception; that 
Is correct. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. That hos- 
tility continued until Cuban reciprocity 
was undertaken, and the threat which ap- 
peared, growing out of the possible an- 
nexation of Cuba, the greatest sugar- 



producing area in the world, I think, 
disturbed many of the independent in- 
vestors in sugar plants, and the more 
timid sold their holdings. I do not know 
to whom, nor do I know who now owns 
them. I know the one nearest to my 
own home city is absolutely independ- 
ent of the trust, and I know that the 
Michigan sugar organization has not 
changed a single officer or director 
from the time of its inception until this 
moment. 

Mr. BRISTOW. That may be true. 
I do not want to question the judg- 
ment of Senators who supported Cu- 
ban reciprocity because they believed, 
first, that we were under obligation to 
help a struggling country, which was 
a very laudable purpose, and, second, 
that the tendency would be to reduce 
the price to the American consumer. 
The Senators who contended for the 
enactment of that reciprocity treaty 
had laudable motives, and fought for 
what they thought -was right. The 
Senators who contended against it saw 
a different result. Time has demon- 
strated that the Cubans did get some 
benefit. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. The Cuban 
planter? 

Mr. BRISTOW. Yes; he got some 
benefit. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. The Cuban 
laborer? 

Mr. BRISTOW. I think the Cuban 
laborer got some benefit. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I do not 
think it affected his wage. 

Mr. BRISTOW. I think the Cuban 
did get some benefit, but the American 
people did not. So, on the one side, 
those who contended for Cuban reci- 
procity were right, as far as Cuba was 
concerned; and, on the other side, as 
far as the American people were con- 
cerned, they were not. I think that is. 
true. 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I was one of 
thofee who, in the House of Represen- 
tatives, voted against the Cuban reci- 
procity bill. I believed it to be unwise 
then, and I believe it to be unwise now. 
I think the result of it was simply to 
take out of the Treasury of the United 
States somewhere in the neighborhood 
of ten or twelve million dollars per 
annum, and to benefit the Cubans very 
little, and to reduce the price of sugar 
in thi.*^ country not at all, 



FOSTER. SMITH. BRISTOW. 



261 



If We Open the Door to the World's 
Sugar We Destroy the American 
Cane and Beet=Sugar Industries. 

From the Congressional Record of May 29, 
1909. 

MURPHY J. FOSTER, of Louisiana. 
I will attempt to show that it is a 
wise and just policy not only to en- 
courage the full development of our 
agricultural interests, but at the same 
time to encourage the growth and de- 
velopment of our manufactures; and I 
hope to demonstrate that the enormous 
amount of capital which has been in- 
vested in good faith in the sugar in- 
dustry of this country, the vast num- 
bers of our people who are dependent 
on it, the diversified interests that are 
affected for weal or woe by its welfare, 
and ^e large revenue it yields with 
the least cost to the people, warrant 
fair and even generous treatment at 
the hands of Congress. 

Mr. President, if it can be shown, as 
I have indicated, that, with the soli- 
tary exception of the McKinley act, 
every Tariff law from the foundation 
of the Government until the present 
has placed sugar on the dutiable list, 
with a higher rate on refined than on 
raw, and that every political party 
that has arisen to a commanding posi- 
tion in this country has subscribed to 
that doctrine, there ought to be some 
convincing reason to justify a depart- 
ure from this established policy. 

If it can be demonstrated that the 
Tariff on sugar is lower in this coun- 
try than in the sugar-producing coun- 
tries of Europe, and that in addition to 
being the cheapest necessary of life 
entering into the daily consumption of 
our people the price to the consumer 
in the United States is cheaper than to 
the consumer in those countries, then 
I submit that no just complaint can 
be urged against the present Tariff 
legislation on sugar by either the con- 
sumer, the taxpayer, or the lawmaker. 
Finally, If it can be shown that the 
revenue from sugar under the present 
bill is necessary for the support and 
maintenance of the Government, then 
that revenue should not be reduced or 
destroyed. 

Sugar Cheaper Here Than In Other Coun- 
tries. 

Having shown the rate of duties Im- 



posed by this Government on sugar, 
and the price of sugar in this country 
under those various acts, I now pur- 
pose to show that the taxation or du- 
ties imposed by all countries of conti- 
nental Europe are much higher than it 
has been the policy of this country 
to impose, and especially are they 
higher than the duties under the Ding- 
ley act or the bill under consideration. 

Conclusive information to this effect 
has recently been furnished by the 
State Department, In response to a 
resolution of the Senate. It shows 
the amount of duties per hundred 
pounds imposed by foreign govern- 
ments on sugar, and I will ask per- 
mission of the Senate to have them 
Inserted as part of my remarks. 

If you will open the door to German 
sugar and to all the other sugars In 
the world, I think you will get it 
cheaper here, but at the cost of de- 
stroying every cane and beet-sugar 
producer in this country, and when 
this has been wrought we would pay 
our tribute to foreign countries for 
all time to come in higher prices than 
we now pay for our domestic sugar. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Acord- 
Ing to the Senator's statement a mo- 
ment ago, we are getting it cheaper 
than any other country in the world. 

Mr. FOSTER. We are paying less 
for it in this country than any other 
country in the world, except England. 

Mr. BRISTOW. I should like, if the 
Senator will be kind enough to do so, 
for him to state why It Is that other 
countries pay more in the retail mar- 
ket for their sugar than we do? What 
Is the reason for that? 

Mr. FOSTER. It is on account of 
the taxes Imposed upon sugar in the 
way of consumption and excise taxes 
and the Tariff. 

Mr. BRISTOW. Yes; it is a local 
tax on sugar in European countries 
something like our tax on whisky and 
spirits. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes; it is a consump- 
tion and excise tax, but that makes 
no difference to the people, they pay 
more for their sugar than we do. 

I read, however, a part of this state- 
ment. 

The people of France are taxed $2.36 
per hundred pounds on domestic sugar, 
while imported raw pays an additional 
48 cents per hundred pounds, and re- 



262 



FOSTER. TILLMAN. 



fined sugar 52 cents per hundred 
pounds, making: the total tax $2.84 
per hundred pounds on raw and $2.89 
per hundred pounds on refined. 

The people of Holland are taxed 
$4.82 per hundred pounds on sugar 
testing 98 degrees or more. Thirty- 
seven florins is deducted for each de- 
gree less, but the minimum shall not 
be below $3.21 per hundred pounds. 

The people of Belgium are taxed 
$1.75 per hundred pomnds on domestic 
sugar, with an additional surtax of 
48 cents per hundred pounds, making a 
total tax of $2.23 per hundred pounds. 

The people of Sweden are now taxed 
$3.60 per hundred pounds on Imported 
refined sugar and $3 per hundred on 
Imported raw sugar, but the tax is to 
be slightly decreased in 1913. 

It is also interesting to note how 

, our neighbor, the Dominion of Can- 

' ada, deals with this question. It was 

shown at the hearings on this bill held 

■ by the Ways and Means Committee 

; that the difference in the Canadian 

\ general Tariff between refined sugar 

i and 96 degrees testing raw sugar Is 

0.425 cent per pound, whereas in the 

Dingley Tariff the difference is only 

0.265 cent per pound. 

Price of Sugar Has Not Advanced. 

Having shown that sugar is cheaper 
to the consumer in this country than 
in Continental Europe, I shall next 
show that sugar is relatively the 
cheapest article of food the American 
people consume, and that while every 
other product of the field and factory 
in the last ten years has advanced 
in price from 20 to 40 per cent, the 
price of this article has practically 
remained the same, and that the Amer- 
ican consumer, considering what he 
pays for every other article of food, 
has no just cause to complain of this 
price. 

The American people are fair and 
Just. If it be shown that the sugar 
Tariff under the operation of the Ding- 
ley law and the present bill works no 
hardship or injustice upon them, I do 
not believe that they can reasonably 
demand or will demand any change or 
modification of the sugar schedule. 
Especially Is this true when it can be 
established beyond controversy that 
sugar Is cheaper than any other food 
staple which the people consume, and 
it can further be established that while 



there has been a progressive advance 
in the price of all other necessaries 
of life the price of sugar has remained 
practically stationary. 

My purpose is to show that the 
American consumer has no need to 
complain of the price of sugar, and 
that is my only purpose. In 1896, 100 
pounds of pork would have bought 74 
pounds of sugar. In 1907 it would 
have bought 132 pounds of sugar, 
showing that the purchasing price of 
corn, wheat, etc., has advanced much 
more than the purchasing price of 
sugar. 

If You Take the Tariff Off the Industry 
Js Cone. 

Mr. TILLMAN. The Senator, I pre- 
sume, will acknowledge that this mar- 
velous growth in the production of 
beet sugar and in the production of 
cane sugar is due to the Tariff? 

Mr, FOSTER. I think very largely 
to the Tariff. It may have been 

Mr. TILLMAN. If the Tariff were 
changed and this artificial stimulation 
were withdrawn, would these indus- 
tries go backward and dwindle? 

Mr. FOSTER. My frank opinion Is 
if you take the Tariff off you might 
just as well say the industry is gone. 

It is true that by the importation of 
free sugar from our colonial depend- 
encies a conflict has been precipitated 
between the Anglo-Saxon of this coun- 
try on the one hand and the coolie 
labor of the Orient and the cheap labor 
of the Tropics on the other. With 
anything like an equal contest, how- 
ever, I have an abiding faith that the 
American farmer will come out victor 
in that struggle. If this new indus- 
try is given a fair show the West will 
rise equal In this as in every other 
emergency, and in a few years will 
become the sugar bowl, as well as the 
granary, of the continent. 

The millions of dollars which we are 
yearly sending abroad will be kept at 
home, and the thousands of laborers 
in the beet fields and factories, living 
according to American standards, will 
consume far more of our manufac- 
tured products than the Island peo- 
ples with their primitive wants, whom 
we are now enriching by the purchase 
of their crops. 

Mr. President, If the policy Is carried 
out which is advocated by some of 
the members of this body, by which 



i 



FOSTER. 



2G3 



there is to be a setback to the sugar 
industry of this country. I prophesy 
that in less than a decade the Ameri- 
can farmer will be wiped out of exist- 
ence. 

Mr. TILLMAN. The sugar farmer. 

American Farmers Would Be Put Out of 
Business. 

Mr. FOSTER. Oh, Mr. President, I 
am not talking about sugar farmers. 
The product of the American farm 
will be destroyed and this country will 
be flooded with the product of the 
clieap labor of the Orient. I do not 
stand for any such policy. 

Mr. President, It is my deliberate 
judgment that no article of domestic 
production, either manufactured or 
agricultural, has been so unjustly 
treated by the provisions of this bill 
as the sugar industry. Not only has 
the differential on refined sugar been 
reduced from 12i^ cents to 71/2 cents, 
equivalent to a reduction of 40 per 
cent, but there is a provision which 
authorizes the importation free of duty 
of 300,000 tons of sugar from the Phil- 
ippine Islands. 

This amount of 300,000 tons fills up 
the measure of our needs of imported 
sugars, and fully supplies the entire 
requirements of the United States for 
raw sugars to meet its annual con- 
sumption of more than 3,000,000 tons. 

With the necessity removed for im- 
porting a single pound of full duty 
paid sugar, as the result of the pro- 
posal to bring in these 300,000 tons 
from the Philippines duty free, the 
sugars that come from Cuba become 
the highest dutiable sugar Imported, 
and as these pay 20 per cent less than 
the Dingley rates, the Tariff Is conse- 
quently reduced to this extent; this Is, 
20 per cent. 

So it will be seen that this bill 
strikes off 20 per cent of the Tariff 
that raw sugar has heretofore en- 
joyed, and 40 per cent of the refiners' 
differential. 

The Pf}i/ippine Menace. 

1 look upon this Philippine provision 
as full of menace and danger to the 
domestic sugar industry of the United 
States. Mr. President, it is useless to 
attempt to deceive ourselves about the 
situation. The American industry, 
whose bulwark and support is the 



white American farmer, can not com- 
pete with the Asiatic labor of the Ori- 
ent; and with free sugar from Hawaii, 
the product of Chinese and Japanese 
labor, free sugar from Porto Rico, 
concessionary sugar from Cuba, and 
free sugar from the Philippines, every 
thoughtful legislator must acknowl- 
edge that the cane and beet industry 
of the United States Is in peril. 

Why add to that danger adverse leg- 
islation upon Tariff lines affecting our 
rates and standards? Why make hard- 
er the struggle that the beet industry 
is making against the invasion of the 
Orient? Why make more difficult the 
unequal contest which the Louisiana 
sugar producer is waging than it al- 
ready is by seeking to open up oppo- 
sition to these industries through a 
flood of sugar from Continental Eu- 
rope? 

Would Hurt Producers, Not the Trust. 

Now, Mr. President, the effort to 
strike down the differential or to re- 
duce the duty on refined sugar Is 
claimed to be directed against the 
trust. Right here I wish to state that 
I am no defender of the trust in any 
manner, fashion, shape, or form. I 
neither justify nor excuse any of its 
monopolistic methods nor any of its 
illegal practices. I do not believe, 
however, that you are going to injure 
the trust by any such legislation as 
Is contemplated. You are simply going 
to hurt the producer, and the producer 
alone. 

Senators from the beet sugar States 
are here upon this fioor and can give 
the information; but I know the fact 
that the trust has absolutely nothing 
to do with the sugar production In my 
State. 

I submit to the Senators upon this 
floor. Is it a wise policy to destroy the 
refining industry? Only recently it 
has begun to develop along independ- 
ent lines. It has attracted millions of 
Independent capital, and dotted the 
country from one ocean to the other 
with competing plants capable of sup- 
plying the contributing territory with 
its own sugar and relieving the peo- 
ple of paying further tribute to the 
trust. 

The wish and hope of every one of 
us has been that the beet and cane in- 
dustries of this country would flourish 
and prosper in order that our own 



farms and plantations might supply 
this great necessary of life to the peo- 
ple; and now that we are about to 
accomplish this result, the patient 
work of years is threatened with de- 
struction. 

Mr. President, the beet industry Is 
the natural competitor of the sugar 
trust. If I were seeking to build up 
the sugar trust, the first move I 
would make would be to destroy the 
beet-sugar industry in this country, 
because it turns out the finished prod- 
uct, and I submit that if you strike 
out the differential you will be playing 
into the hands of the trust, for it is 
upon this that the beet industry must 
depend if it is to grow and wax strong, 
so that it can fight the rival giant. 

I do not believe, Mr. President, that 
as the sugar industry of this country 
grows, as it promises to, that the 
sugar trust, or any other trust can 
control, absorb, or monopolize its out- 
put. 

Greatest Sugar Consumers in the World. 

Destroy our refining Interests and 
what an opulent field for exploitation 
the markets of the United States will 
become for the surplus product of 
Europe, what a golden stream of 
American wealth would flow into the 
coffers of the Old World. 

The American people have become 
the greatest sugar consumers on earth 
and the refined article constitutes the 
bulk of what is used, so if the re- 
finers of this country are destroyed 
the American consumer must be sup- 
plied by foreign refiners or go with- 
out. 

We are now annually sending to Ha- 
waii over $30, 000, 000 for sugar; to 
Porto Rico over $7,000,000; to Cuba 
something over $60,000,000; and some 
$2,000,000 to the Philippines, making 
more than $100,000,000 annually drained 
out of this country which could other- 
wise go into all the channels of Ameri- 
can trade did we but produce at home 
what we consume. 

And now that we are in a fair way 
toward correcting this great economic 
leak. It Is proposed not only to stifle 
the beet and cane-sugar industries, 
upon which we must depend If we are 
to keep this money at home, but al!?© 
to destroy another great domestic in- 
dustry, and compel the American con- 



sumer to pay tribul 
finers. 

Trusts Would Grow Stronger on Free 
Sugar. 

But, Mr. President, if this course Is 
persisted in It will be the producer 
and not the trust who will be called 
upon to suffer. These refiners have 
Invested millions and millions of dol- 
lars in their enterprises. At the head 
of their institutions are the shrewdest 
and sharpest men In the business 
world. They know perfectly well that 
the product of the cane fields of Louis- 
iana and the crops of Hawaii, Porto 
Rico, the Philippines, and Cuba can 
find no other market than our own. 
They will simply, therefore, as I said 
before, deduct the differential we deny 
them from the price they pay the pro- 
ducers of sugar in this country. They 
will keep down the level of their prices 
sufficiently below the European re- 
finers to exclude foreign sugar from 
our markets, and in the war of compe- 
tition the sugar industry of the United 
States will be ground down and de- 
stroyed. Then we must look to our 
island possessions in the Tropics or to 
Europe for our sugar, for in that con- 
test, Mr. President, the domestic sugar 
industry will have been destroyed. We 
can not compete in production with 
the pauper labor of the Orient or with 
Europe and its low standard of living. 
The American farmer will be made 
the victim of our blind resentment 
against the sugar trust, and as that 
great malefactor stalks through the 
ruins of our domestic industry it will 
grow stronger and richer as it fattens 
upon free sugar from our tropical pos- 
sessions. 

A Question Intimately Related to 
the Wage Scale of the American 
Workman. 

From the Congressional Record of May 29, 
190Q. 
WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Michi- 
gan. Mr. President, when the Senator 
from Wisconsin [Mr. LaFollette] Intro- 
duced his resolution the other day, I 
Interrogated him as to the wisdom of 
Including other countries in his re- 
quest. I did not know what the Sena- 
tor from Wisconsin desired, but I felt 
that he wanted the actual wage scale 



SMITH. GALLINGER. 



265 



of Germany. I then remarked that 
there had come to my notice a state- 
ment of the wage scale in certain lines 
of Industry in Sweden, which I thought 
would be of interest to the Senate in 
framing this bill. I desire now to call 
attention to a report by Special Agent 
H. W. Davis, to the Department of 
Commerce and Labor, dated November 
14. 1908, in which he gives the condi- 
tions of labor and the wage scale in 
the iron and steel industry of Sweden. 
I am merely going to quote one or two 
sentences from it. He says: 

The following statement of wages 
paid was furnished by one of the 
larger concerns in Sweden, but located 
at a -point remote from a large city. 
The scale is therefore less by 20 to 25 
per cent than where similar labor la 
employed in cities with much higher 
rents and living expenses. 

Then he says: 

Low Pay of Iron Workers in Sweden. 

Blast Furnaces. — Foremen, $486 per 
year; furnace men, twelve hours per 
day. ?5.83 per week; helpers, twelve 
hours, $5.50 per v/eek; topmen, eight 
hours, $5.30 per week. 

Charcoal and Roasting Furnaces.—- 
Some working three shifts of eight 
hours each, others two shifts of twelve 
hours each, the pay ranging from $4.70 
to $5.30 per week. 

Martin Furnaces. — Pay is by the ton, 
amounting, on the average, to the fol- 
lowing wage per year: Foremen $540; 
melters, $486 to $513; helpers, $350 to 
$378; ladlemen, $350 to $878; flaskmen, 
$300 to $330; stokers, $324; watchmen, 
$300; cranemen, $324; other helpers, 
$300. "Work is in night and day shifts, 
twelve hours each, the week ending at 
3 or 4 o'clock Saturday afternoons. 
Furnaces are charged from 6 to 12 
o'clock Sundays for the ensuing night 
shift. Sunday labor is paid for time 
and a half. 

Now, one thing more. He says of 
the wages: 

Bessemer Converters. — Foremen, $513 
per year; furnace men, 89 cents per 
day; nelpers, 76 cents; flaskmen, 76 
cents; ladlemen, 89 cents; cranemen, 
92 cents. This daily wage is for 
twelve hours' labor, the shifts being 
two to cover the night and day work, 
but there is an additional allowance 
depending on the tonnage gotten out, 
which averages about 65 cents per man 

^^Rolllng Mills. — Foremen, $10.80; 
heaters, $9.45; and rollers, $8.64 per 

Pipe and Tube Mills.— Foremen, 
$10.80; heaters, $9.45, and helpers. $7.83; 
rollers. $8.64; sawmen, $6.76; greasers 
and electric engineers, $6.75; plug boys, 
at about 20 years of age, $5.80; boys of 
16 years, $4.18; boys, 14 to 16 years 
$2.70; day laborers m mill, $5.26; all 



the foregoing per week. Inspectors, 
per year, $365. 

General Laborers. — Machinists, $7.70 
per we,ek; firemen, eighty hours per 
w^eek, $6.35; stationary engineers, sev- 
enty-five hours per week, $5.60; brick- 
layers, $6.48; house carpenters, $5.26; 
ordinary day laborers, fifty-nine hours 
per week, $4.86. 

I simply read this statement In order 
that Senators might know that we are 
dealing with a question intimately re- 
lated to the wage scale of the Ameri- 
can workmen, and that, compared with 
the wage scale in any other country 
In the world, ours is the highest. 

li Is a Question of t/)e Cost of Manu- 
facturing. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I will state to the 
Senator from Michigan that the ques- 
tion of the cost of living does not enter 
into^ the matter at all. Those men 
are manufacturing in competition with 
our people, and it is a mere question 
as to the cost of manufacturing where 
they invade our markets. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Yes. But 
that prompts me to say to the Senator 
from New Hampshire that Mr. Davis 
did go into the cost of living some- 
what. He says: 

Since most forms of food cost more 
in Sweden than in the United States, 
particularly the high-class bread-stuffs 
and meats, it follows that at the 
low wages prevailing the standard of 
living is comparatively low. Coarse- 
ground rye and graham are principally 
used for bread. Bacon is largely used, 
but meat is not usually served more 
than once a day on the workingman's 
table. Clothing costs less than in the 
United States; particularly is this no- 
ticeable in the better class of men's 
clothing, but goods consisting largely 
of cotton or rough goods of the cheap- 
er variety, usually worn about shops 
and factories, cost only slightly less 
than in America. 

Mr. President, I do not intend to de- 
lay the Senate at all to elaborate upon 
these figures, which I think are care- 
fully prepared and are entitled to some 
credence when we are engaged in fix- 
ing the difference between the cost of 
production in Europe and the cost here. 
No Senator can say that the wage 
scale of any other country in the world 
is the equal of our own, and no Sena- 
tor can say that the manner of living 
among the workmen in any other coun- 
try in the world is the equal of our 
own. Consequently, in perfecting a 
bill so intimately related to the wel- 
fare of the great mass of the American 



266 



JOHNSON. BACON. 



workmen as is this Tariff bill, we 
ought to be guided by such practical 
lessons as this. 



The Only Right and Sensible Way 
for Any Country to Make Its 
Tariff Laws. 

From the Congressional Record of May ^9, 
J909. 
MARTIN N. JOHNSON, of North 
Dakota. 

The right to make its own Tariffs 
high or low is conceded to every na- 
tion by every nation. 

The rate is a matter of opinion and 
judgment for each government to fix 
at the point most advantageous for its 
own people. We are making this Tar- 
iff solely with a view to benefiting the 
people of the United States. Other 
people will make their Tariff laws in 
the same way, for their own advan- 
tage. 

This is the only right and sensible 
way for any country to make its laws. 
In framing this law we have placed 
everything upon the free list which we 
can not produce to advantage in this 
country except a few luxuries. 

This is done in order to remove all 
restrictions and burdens from the im- 
portation of all articles which we do 
not ourselves produce in great abun- 
dance. This covers more than half of 
our enormous imports. 

But when it comes to such things as 
the chief products of our own farms, 
forests, and factories, which we do not 
need to ship in from abroad, then we 
have placed such a rate of duty on 
the imported article as will, in our 
judgment, equalize the cost of produc- 
tion (mainly the wages of labor) at 
home and abroad. 

How consistent has been the doc- 
trine of the Republican party 

Mr. BAGON. I do not wish to inter- 
rupt the Senator, but I should like to 
ask him the name of the Representa- 
tive who made the speech? He did not 
state that. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of North Dakota. I 
am a little modest about giving names, 
but it was your humble servant. I 
am sorry the Senator crowded me to 
say that. 

Mr. BACON. I did not know that at 
the time I made the inquiry. I was 
struck by the clearness and lucidity of 
the argument, and I desired to know 
who was the author of it. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of North Dakota. 
Thank you. Continuing: 

Other countries, except the few^ who 
have adopted the policy of a "Tariff 
for revenue only," sometimes called 
"Free-Trndo." make their Tariffs about 



In the same way. We have never 
asked any country to make its Tariff 
laws witli the slightest reference to 
our benefit. 

I think that is as true to-day as It 
was twelve years ago 

We expect them to be guided entirely 
by enlightened selfishness. If we have 
anything for sale which they can not 
advantageously produce, it will be to 
their Interest to put it on the free list, 
just as we do. 

That will afford us all the market we 
need. 

Foreign Countries IVhicf) Have Protested 
Against Our Tariff. 

In connection with the protests of 
foreign countries, I ask leave to print 
a couple of paragraphs and a table in 
the Record showing the exports to 
those countries for the year before the 
Dingley Tariff bill was passed, and 
the year after it was passed, and also 
ten years later. 

The matter referred to is as follows: 

Another evidence of the indisposition 
of other countries to attempt to ex- 
clude the required products of the Uni- 
ted States from their markets is found 
in the fact that although a dozen of 
the great countries of the world simul- 
taneously protested against the Ding- 
ley Tariff act, no one of those coun- 
tries excluded any of the products of 
the United States following the enact- 
ment of that law or even reduced by 
a single dollar the value of their pur- 
chases from this country. These pro- 
tests, while not a joint action, and 
while relating in some cases to differ- 
ent features of the act from those 
complained of by other protesting 
countries, were practically simultane- 
ous, and as the passage of the act 
without recognition of their protest 
was a simultaneous rejection by the 
United States of those protests, the oc- 
currence offered to them a special and 
vinique opportunity for combined ac- 
tion in excluding our products from 
their markets. Yet not a single one of 
those countries took such action, and 
In no case did they reduce their pur- 
chases from the United States. On the 
contrary, our exports to every one of 
the 12 countries have increased. Our 
exports to the 12 countries which pro- 
tested against the act In question were 
In 1896. $618,668,000, and in 1907, 
$1,220,000,000, an increase of about 100 
per cent, as compared with 1896, the 
year prior to that in which these pro- 
tests were made. (See table of coun- 
tries protesting against Dingley law, and 
exports to them.) 

Besides, the complete power of the 
United States to protect Itself against 
retaliation must not be overlooked. 
The only countries from which there 
could be anj"- possibility of danger are 
the leading Industrial and commercial 
nations of Europe. Their policy is Pro- 
tective, as is ours. But if they are 
compelled to buy largely of our prod- 



JOHNSON. UOOT. 



2()( 



uct« from necessity, we buy largely of New York Maltsters Opposed to In=> 

fl;i!?\e's7%sfo°ni?rs. "^^aftheTSS? crease on Tariff on Barley. 

?Lm l^re"cS?lflv''lu'x7ri^s. "If'They Fro.. ,l.e Congressional Record of May ^. 

were to proscribe our products we 1909- 

could more easily proscribe theirs So eLIHU ROOT, of New York. Mr. 

long as we maintain the Protective ^ ,^ ^ ^ , \ ^ 

policy we can defend ourselves; the President, I wish to say a few words 

more we advance toward Free-Trade about the pending amendment, which 

the fewer weapons of defense we hold. jg ^ proposal to increase the duty upon 

Thus, both the 'logic of the situation 

and our actual experience with adverse barley. 

legislation and threats of such legisla- I think. Mr. President, that I ought 

tion fail to justify the assertion that ^ ^^ against the amendment, and 

our products of any class are being ex- " . \. .. 

eluded or are likely to be excluded it is my purpose to vote against It. 

from the markets of other countries by I wish to state briefly the reason, 

reason of our Protective Tariff. -p^^^^, to the rp^j,jf£ ^ct of 1883, the duty 

Growth of Exports to the Countries Which on barley was 15 cents a bushel. Upon 

Protested Against the Dingley Tariff ^^^^ ^^P°^t of the Tariff commission 

of that year, the Congress reduced the 

^'''' duty to 10 cents a bushel. The duty 

This table gives a full list of the ^^^^ increased to 30 cents a bushel in 
countries which protested against the 

Dingley Tariff bill during its consider- the McKmley act of 1890; reduced to 

atlon a"nd the value of merchandise ex- 30 per cent ad valorem by the VVilson 

ported thereto in the year prior to the ^^^ of 1894; and restored to 30 cents 

consideration of that measure and of . ^, t-.- ■. 1. ^ ,«^r, r^. 

their protest, and compares with those m the Dmgley act of 1897. The House 

figures the exports to those same coun- of Representatives in the pending bill 

tries m 1898— the year immediately fol- reduced the rate to 24 cents a bushel, 

lowing the enactment of the Tariff , ^, 

law— and In 1907, the latest year for and the committee now recommends an 

which figures are now available. It amendment to the House bill restoring 

will be seen that despite the protests ^he Dingley rate of 30 cents, 
against the Dingley bill, and m some 

cases implied threats of exclusion of During the period when the duty was 

^>."^f.i!,''^w?^'!?''n''^i.xi'' fht^t.vinrt«^V^ 10 cents a bushel a very large malting 

should become a law, the exports to . , , , ., x, 

those countries have In every case industry grew up along the southern 

greatlj^ increased, the total exports to shore of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario; 

those countries in 1907 being practic- ^i^ny millions of dollars were invested 

ally double those of 1896, the year prior , ^/ .., ^ , 

to the enactment of the law. ^n the New York cities upon the south 

Exports from the United States to the countries which protested against the Dingley Tariff 
bill, showing increase in exports after enactment of the law. 

Year ending June 30 — 

Country. 1896. 18'98. 1907. 

United Kingdom $405,741,339 $540,940,605 $607,783,255 

Germany 97,897,197 155,039,972 256,595,663 

Netherlands 39,022,899 64,274.524 104,507,716 

Belgium , 27,070,625 47,619,201 51,493,044 

Italy 19,143,606 23,290,858 61746,965 

Japan 7,689,685 20,385,041 38,770,027 

Denmark 6,557,448 12,697,421 23,384,989 

China 6,921,933 9,992,894 25,704,532 

Argentina 5,979,046 6,429,070 32.163,336 

Austria-Hungary 2,439,651 5,697,912 15,136,185 

Greece 191,046 127,559 1,634,431 

Switzerland 32,954 263,970 612,579 

Total to countries $618,687,429 $886,759,027 $1,219,532,722 

shore of those lakes, and there also a considerable importation of the hard, 

grew up a very large production of No. 1, Canadian barley and a large 

barley in the farming region of north- production of New York barley to 

ern New York. The barley raised In blend with the Canadian for the manu- 

that region is specifically adapted for facture of malt. 

blending with Canadian barley for the The Increase of duty by the Dingley 

manufacture of malt; and, accordingly, act was a severe blow to the malting 

under the lower rate of duty there was Industry of New York and to the bar- 



268 



ROOT. HEYBURN. 



ley-raising industry of New York. Un- 
der that duty the malting- industry has 
languished and decreased, and under 
that duty the production of barley by 
the farmers of northern New York 
has to a great extent disappeared. 

Obliged to Take Their Supply from the 
Northwest. 

Under this revision both the maltsters 
— such of them as remain in the cities 
of Buffalo, Oswego, and some other 
New York towns — and the representa- 
tives of the farmers came to the Com- 
mittee on Ways and Means and asked 
for a reduction of the duty. The situ- 
ation in which we are placed, Mr. 
President, is that, failing the possibil- 
ity of importing Canadian barley, fail- 
ing the production of New York barley 
to blend with the Canadian barley, our 
malting houses in New York are 
obliged to take their entire supply 
from the Northwest, and the supply of 
the Northwest, collected in the eleva- 
tors that control the transportation of 
barley, is subjected to increases and 
decreases of price practically at the 
will of the owners of the elevators; so 
that the New York maltsters find it im- 
possible to calculate with any accu- 
racy or certainty upon the price of the 
material which is necessary for their 
Industry. 

Mr. President, I do not intend to 
oppose or find fault with the princi- 
ple of Protection of agricultural prod- 
ucts; but I fail to see in any facts 
that have been presented here any evi- 
dence that a duty of 30 cents a bushel 
on barley is necessary to equalize the 
cost of production upon the American 
and upon the Canadian side of the 
boundary line. If it were necessary, 
then the maltsters and farmers of 
northern New York must take the 
consequences of the application of the 
rule of Protection. They must be con- 
tent to suffer in that one respect, in 
order that they, with the other citi- 
zens of our country, shall benefit by 
the combined effect of the duties in- 
cluded in their Protective Tariff; but if 
there is no occasion for fixing the duty 
at this high point under the applica- 
tion of the rule of Protection, if the 
rule does not require it, then the es- 
tablishment of this duty would be to 
Inflict upon the interests which I am 
endeavoring to represent an injury 
wholly unwarranted. 



Duty on Barley Necessary to the 
American Farmer as Against the 
Canadian Farmer. 

From the Congressional Record of May 2p, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
The new lands in British Columbia and 
Manitoba that border on the northern 
portion of several of our States are 
practically obtainable, or the use of 
them is obtainable, for nothing. We 
are a large barley-producing country, 
and the lands upon which we grow 
barley are worth from $30 to ?100 an 
acre. A man engaged in the produc- 
tion of barley on our side of the line 
receives double the wages, both in 
planting the crop and in harvesting it, 
that are received by the man in Brit- 
ish Columbia, Manitoba, or elsewhere 
on the Canadian side of the line. 

The fact is that the production of 
barley is growing. It is one of the 
most profitable crops that we raise in 
the Northwest, so far as the profit per 
acre to the farmer is concerned, and 
there is an increasing acreage there 
from year to year, to which there Is 
scarcely a limit, and of course we ex- 
pect to export it. We expect to ex- 
port 800,000,000 bushels before we are 
through with the development of bar- 
ley, if it keeps on. We can supply a 
great deal of it, and 8,000,000 bushels 
is a very small quantity. I repeat that 
a single county could furnish that 
much barley. I regard the duty as 
necessary for the Protection of the 
American farmer against the Canadian 
farmer. Now, these barley fields north 
of the line are, to a very large extent, 
in the hands of the very cheapest kind 
of foreigners who are brought over 
there. Several of the societies with 
which we are very familiar raise bar- 
ley north of the line, and we must not 
be compelled to compete with them, 
because we pay |3 and $3.50 in the field 
to harvest our barley. We pay our 
farm hands three times the wages that 
they are paid north of the line, and we 
want to continue to do that. 

I was speaking In the ordinary use 
of that term. There has been a class 
of immigration there that we would 
not offer any special Inducements to 
on this side of the line. I do not think 
it proper, in public speech, or in pri- 
vate speech for that matter, to de- 



I 



HEYBUUN. McCUMBER. BEVERlDGE. 



269 



claim against any nationality at all, 
because individual character is not al- 
ways a question of geography. I used 
the term in the ordinary sense, in de- 
scribing a class of immigration that 
would be undesirable to us. 

Noi Alone a Question of Building Up 
Breweries. 

N<5w, we want conditions on our side 
of the line to be so much better than 
the conditions on the other side that 
our people will stay at home, or will 
come back to this country; and in 
making these few suggestions in sup- 
port of retaining the duty recommend- 
ed by the committee to this body, I do so 
upon the basis of the actual facts, and 
with a view not only of retaining ex- 
isting conditions and inducements, but 
extending them if possible. I should 
have been glad to see the duty on 
barley even higher. There is nothing 
that builds up a community like a 
product of the soil of this character, 
because the market is unlimited, and 
it is an ever-growing market, it is an 
easy crop to raise, a comparatively 
economical crop to produce, and why 
should we hesitate about retaining the 
duty? 

I realize the force of the suggestion 
made by the junior Senator from New 
York [Mr. Root]. It might be de- 
sirable to get barley in under more 
favorable conditions locally, along the 
St. Lawrence River, but bear in mind 
that this crop is grown all over the 
United States, and we have no such 
conditions along our great line upon 
the north that divides our Western 
States from Canada. We have no sxich 
conditions existing there as those pic- 
tured by the Senator from New York, 
and It is not a question of building 
up our breweries alone. The use of 
barley is not confined to the making 
of malt or beer. 



Duty on Barley Desirable for the 
Protection of an American Indus=> 
try. 

From the Congressional Record of May 29, 
1909. 
PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North 
Dakota. The Senator from Indiana 
seems to be startled at the wonderful 
amount of our exportatlons of barley, 



being about 8,000,000 bushels, so he 
says. I have not looked up our expor- 
tatlons, but I assume that Is the 
amount. We produce in this country or- 
dinarily about 150,000,000 to 160,000,000 
bushels, and all but about 8,000,000 bush- 
els, according to the Senator's own 
statement, are used in this country. 
We will admit that about 8,000,000 
bushels are exported. The Senator 
assumes that the export price will 
necessarily affect the price of all the 
products In the United States, 

But, Mr. President, there is some- 
thing more than the question of export 
price in the matter of the fixing of 
prices in the United States. Barley Is 
not shipped from some sections of the 
country for export at all. I do not 
think it is shipped from my country 
for exportation. The distance is too 
great and the freight rates are too 
great to justify shipping It any great 
distance to come in competition with 
the world's market. A certain portion 
of it undoubtedly can be exported from 
certain sections of the country to the 
general world's market; but our price 
is fixed, not only by the supply and 
demand, as we generally use that ex- 
pression, but by the visible supply 
within the radius of a particular mar- 
ket. 

If the Senator would make inquiries 
along the line of my State, he would 
find that notwithstanding the fact that 
we are exporting barley on the one 
side of this imaginary line it is con- 
siderably more expensive than It Is 
upon the other side, showing to the 
Senator that the export price or the 
demand of the world does not fix the 
price entirely in the United States. 

We Are Fixing a Tariff for Ten Years. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Does the Sena- 
tor really think, with a duty of 24 
cents a bushel, as fixed by the House 
bill, the farmers of his State would 
suffer in competition with the farmers 
of Canada? 

Mr. McCUMBER. To-day, no. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. That is sufl[iclent. 

Mr. McCUMBER. Next year. no. 
Within ten years, yes. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. You do not mean 
that we are fixing a Tariff on futures, 
and ten years off at that? 

Mr. McCUMBER. The Senator him- 
self has again and again stated on 



270 



ALDRICH. McCt'MBEK. kEYBUHN. 



this floor that we are fixing a Tariff 
for ten years. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senate Commit- 
tee on Finance report and recommend 
this increase of duty because, in their 
judgment, it is desirable for the Pro- 
tection of an American industry. Our 
judgment may not be so good as that 
of the Senator from Indiana; I will 
not undertake to make any compari- 
sons in that respect; but that is the 
judgment of that committee, based 
upon information and belief as to the 
interests of this article; and while I 
do not feel that I can rely at all upon 
the influence of that committee upon 
the judgment of the Senator from In- 
diana, based upon long experience — 
for weeks — I will say it Is the honest 
judgment of the committee that this 
rate ought to be increased. 

Who Would Be Benefited by a Lower 
Duty? 

Mr. McCUMBER. The Senator from 
New York suggested that the farmers in 
his State ask for this reduction, if I un- 
derstood him. Who is to be benefited by 
this lower Tariff? There is just one inter- 
est in the United States; that Is, the 
brewing interest or the manufacturers 
of malt for the brewing interest. Why 
are they asking for it? Because they 
are not satisfied with the American 
barley. With the higher price gen- 
erally of labor in this country upon 
the farm, at least, with the higher 
priced labor in this country, and the 
higher price of almost everything else, 
we necessarily need a higher price for 
all of our products. The American 
farmer is willing to take his chances 
with the other Protected industries in 
the United States if you will give him 
the same adequate Protection. But the 
Senator must see that with barley to- 
day at 65 cents a bushel and constant- 
ly rising, and as the consumption is 
bound to increase while the acreage in 
this country that is adapted to the 
raising of barley will not Increase, we 
are reaching a condition when we will 
be In need of higher rates all the time. 

As I said, why does the brewer need 
all the American barley? He buys the 
Canadian barley, as has been suggested 
by the Senator from New York, not 
because It Is a different kind or grade, 
but because the labor that Is expended 
upon it In specially caring for It and 



keeping it bright, and so forth, makes 
it more valuable for the brewer. One 
of two things happens, either the 
brewer has got to get that barley and 
pay for it the price that the foreign 
demand requires or he has got to use 
barley grown in the United States to 
take its place. If he is compelled to 
go to the foreign market for his bar- 
ley, then it is a question of revenue 
only, and I do not know any better 
source to get that revenue than from 
the barley that is used for brewing 
purposes. If, on the other hand, he Is 
not compelled to get that upon this 
side and we make it cost more to im- 
port it from the other side, it will en- 
courage the farmers on this side In 
expending the same labor that is placed 
upon it in Canada and securing the 
higher price for their own barley com- 
mensurate with the added labor upon 
It. 

Adequate Protection Increases the 
Market Value of Farm Lands. 

From the Congressional Record of May 29.. 
J909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
The conditions expressed by the Sena- 
tor from North Dakota [Mr. McCum- 
ber] seem to be different from those 
which prevail in the section of the 
United States to which I shall directly 
call the attention of the Senate. It is 
not a question of next year or the 
year after in our part of the country; 
it is a question of this year. 

In 1894 the enactment of the Wilson- 
Gorman law, which divided the then 
existing duty by three, sent barley 
down a corresponding price In the mar- 
ket, and it stayed down until the Ding- 
ley law was enacted. I have the fig- 
ures before me to demonstrate It. The 
difference between 24 cents and 30 
cents made a difference In the value 
of our land of $3.17 an acre. That Is 
an important Item. The land Is worth 
what it will produce. If It produces 
wheat at 50 cents. It Is to be measured 
by that gauge, and If It produces the 
same quantity of wheat at 80 cents. It 
is to be measured by that gauge. That 
Is tlie only true rule. Hundreds of 
thousands of acres of land that are 
adapted to the raising of barley would 
be worth, under the Ho\ise measure, 



BURKETT. GAMBLE. FLINT. SMITH. 



271 



$3.17 less per acre than it would un- 
der the Senate committee's amendment. 



Nebraska Farmers Protest Against 
Decrease of Tariff on Barley. 

From the Congressional Record of May 22, 
igog. 

ELMER J. BURKETT, of Nebraska. 

Mr. President, I am not going to speak 
at any length, because I know the com- 
mittee and the Senate are anxious to 
vote. Barley is not a product, perhaps, 
which Nebraska is as much interested in 
in the amount produced as are some 
other State, but, nevertheless, we are in- 
terested in it, and I have had consider- 
able objection and protest sent to me 
by citizens of Nebraska against reduc- 
ing this barley schedule. They per- 
haps remember the reductions in price 
that followed the reduction of duty a 
few years ago, and do not want to run 
the risk of a repetition. 



Protection Has Been of Great Benefit 
to the Barley Growers of the 
Northwest. 

From, the Congressional Record of May zg, 
igog. 

ROBERT J. GAMBLE, of South Da- 
kota. Mr. President, just a word on 
this proposition. It occurs to me that 
the present rate of duty on barley 
should be maintained, because its im- 
position has occasioned the develop- 
ment of our barley industry during 
these years. As I recollect it, the pro- 
duction of barley in 1888 was some- 
thing like 60,000,000 bushels, with a 
value of $37,000,000. I have before me 
the December Crop Report, published 
by the Secretary of Agriculture, which 
gives the production of barley for the 
present year as 166,000,000 bushels, 
with a farm value of $92,000,000 — 
practically an increase during this 
decade of three times over. 

It occurs to me, Mr. President, there 
should be no modification in the pres- 
ent rate. I think I am correct in mak- 
ing the statement that, on account of 
the rate of duty and the development 
of the production of barley ip the 
Northwest, there has been transferred 
the place of the fixing of the price of 
barley from New York to Chicago and 



Milwaukee — nearer the region of the 
production of this great product. If 
j'ou take the yield of Minnesota, North 
and South Dakota, Kansas, and Ne- 
braska out of the total production of 
166,000,000 bushels of barley during 
the past year, you will find that 118,- 
000,000 bushels were produced In those 
States. The prices have been fixed and 
the benefits have accrued to the great 
producers of barley in those regions. 
The maltsters and the producers of 
malt have been transferred from the 
eastern seacoast to the West; and I 
think largely the producers of malt in 
the East are practically limited to the 
city of Buffalo. As indicated in the 
Book of Imports, while the price of im- 
ported barley in 1897 was 31 cents per 
bushel, it has now Increased to nearly 
56 cents per bushel. If the present 
rate of duty were lowered, I think it 
would hazard this great industry. 



Protection for Lemons Needed by 
California Growers. 

From the Congressional Record of May 31, 
igog. 
FRANK P. FLINT, of California. 
California needs and Congress should 
retain the duty of li/^ cents per pound 
on imported lemions. It has been found 
that a duty of 1 cent has not fully 
compensated for the increase in the 
cost of labor employed in California 
over the cost of Italian labor, which 
is used in the growth and shipment of 
practically all the lemons imported. 
Labor which costs in Italy 40 cents a 
day costs from $1.75 to $2 in Califor- 
nia. Packing in Italy costs not over 
50 cents, while in California it costs 
from $1.75 to $2. The fact that the 
duty of 1 cent per pound is not enough 
to compensate this difference in cost 
is made evident from the fact that 
Sicilian importations are constantly 
increasing, while California lemon 
growers find it harder and harder each 
year to produce with profit. 



If California Can Produce All the 
Lemons We Need, Why Should 
She Not Do It? 

From the Congressional Record of May 31, 
igog. 
WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Mlchi- 



SMITH. FLINT. 



gan. The Senator from New York 
[Mr. Root], in closing his remarks a 
few moments ago, said, if I understood 
him correctly, that he never knew the 
interest of the consumer to be espe- 
cially benefited by limiting the number 
of competitive vendors. I think I do 
not misquote him. Now, I want to 
give him a concrete case in point. 
"When Congress put a duty upon tin 
plate we were not producing scarcely 
any in this country. We have now had 
the duty on but a very few years. In 
1899 we produced but 732,000,000 
pounds of tin plate; in 1907 we pro- 
duced 1,293,000,000 pounds. In 1899 we 
exported 205,000 pounds of tin plate. 
We put a high duty on foreign tin 
plate, thereby limiting "the competi- 
tive vendors," in the language of the 
Senator from New York, and we ex- 
ported last year 19,000,000 pounds of 
tin plate. 

If it is fair to draw this deduction 
favorable to Protection, it is fair to 
give California the benefit of it. If 
California has an area able to produce 
all the lemons that our country needs, 
why should we not do it? If it is in 
the interest of any great section of our 
country to limit "competitive vendors" 
by our Tariff act, why should it not 
apply with equal force in favor of 
California? 

I have been through the State of 
California thoroughly year after year, 
and I have been amazed and delighted 
to observe the marvelous development 
in the variety of productions which 
that State has steadily undergone; and 
if the only argument that can be ad- 
vanced by those opposed to this sched- 
Tile, so favorable to California, is that 
in limiting "the competitive vendors" 
we are thereby enhancing the cost of 
the domestic products to the consumer, 
then I say the answer lies in the his- 
tory of almost every article Protected 
from ruinous competition by foreign- 
ers. 

How Tin Plate Was Cheapened by Re- 
stricting Foreign Competition. 

I heard it said over and over again 
that we could not produce tin plate in 
America. Mr. McKinley was denounced 
as a dreamer when he undertook to do 
It. The only tin-plate factory in our 
country at that time was dead in Cali- 
fornia. By putting on a high duty 
and temporarily excluding competition 



from abroad, as would perhaps be the 
case with the Sicilian lemon, we have 
been able to produce practically all 
the tin plate we need in this country 
at lower prices than ever before; and 
it is not a good time to say that great 
stretches of American area, suitable to 
the production of these fruits, shall not 
be given the benefit and advantage 
in our Tariff regulations over a for- 
eign state, whose people owe no al- 
legiance to our Government, who can 
not be drafted in its defense, upon 
whose property we can not lay a single 
local burden of taxation, unless, per- 
haps, this may be so regarded. 

For my own part, I am not willing 
to rest upon the argument that compe- 
tition with a foreign state is essen- 
tially necessary in order to give our 
people their necessities at a fair price. 
It is well known that if California did 
not produce lemons we would be at 
the mercy of an importer and a for- 
eign state in the price of this neces- 
sary product. While it has not been 
for me to say how much is necessary 
amply to Protect the fruit growers of 
our own country, yet the remark of the 
Senator from New 'York was such that 
I could not resist the temptation to 
call his attention to a fact in our his- 
tory amply illustrating the wisdom of 
such Protection as will tend to develop 
to its highest state domestic produc- 
tion. 



Free=Trade Operates In the Elimina- 
tion of Competitors. 

From the Congressional Record of May $i, 
jgog. 

FRANK P. FLINT, of California. As 
I stated Saturday, there is no reason 
why California can not produce all 
the lemons consumed in the United 
States, and far more. There is a rea- 
son why we do not produce more lem- M 
ons, and that is because we can not » 

compete with the foreign grower in 
the New York market. If, as a matter 
of fact, this was not a serious proposi- 
tion to the people of my State; if it 
did not mean the entire destruction of 
the lemon business in California, I 
would not be here appealing for this 
half cefit additional duty. 

Mr. President, the Senator from New 
York [Mr. Root] says that this means 
the elimination of a competitor. The 



FLINT. liOOT. PEKKIXS. JOIINSOX. 



273 



elimination of a competitor will be ac- 
complished if the Senator does not 
place a cent and a half duty on lem- 
ons. It will mean that California can 
not go into the New Tork market and 
that a combination of fruit importers 
in the city of New York will fix the 
price of lemons in this country. There 
Is an illustration of what can be done 
under the system the Senator from 
New York complains about — the elim- 
ination of a competitor. The Senator 
from New York does not seem to be 
one of those even Protectionists, who 
is willing- to give Protection in Cali- 
fornia and New York and other places; 
but on New York articles he wants 
Protection, and on the imported ar- 
ticles for the importers in the city of 
New York he wants practically Free- 
Trade, or the elimination of the Cali- 
fornia producer. If California pro- 
ducers do not have adequate Protec- 
tion, it will mean that the lemon acre- 
age of California will be greatly re- 
duced; and if it should be reduced 15 
per cent, it would result in the elim- 
ination of the California producer from 
the New York market, and the elimina- 
tion of California from that market 
will, as I said a minute ago, mean the 
fixing of the price at just what the 
New York importers desire by limiting 
the amount of imports. 

Mr. ROOT. Mr. President, I do not 
wish to prolong this discussion, but I 
have reduced to pounds the figures I 
gave as the number of boxes produced 
by California last year. It Is 133,000,- 
000 pounds. That seems to be a suffi- 
cient answer to the terrible threat of 
the Senator from California that we 
would be deprived of lemons. 

When the Dingley bill was passed 
they were raising 30,000,000 pounds, 
and in the year 1907 they raised 90,- 
000,000 pounds. Last year they raised 
133,000,000 pounds. What is the use of 
talking about a dying industry and 
about the California fruit grower be- 
ing excluded from our market when 
the industry is progressing by leaps 
and bounds with unexampled pros- 
perity under the present Tariff? 

Mr. FLINT. I will state that those 
trees were planted eight years ago, 
during the time when they thought 
they would be able to produce lemons 
at a profit. These trees are 8 years 
old, and this is the crop coming in that 



I speak of. You do not find that they 
have been planting out any lemon 
trees for the last two or three years. 

Mr. PERKINS. If the Senator from 
New York will permit me, I will say 
that Cuba, Sicily, and Mexico are also 
increasing their production at an equal 
ratio or a greater one than we are in 
California. 



Serious Business Affecting the Policy 
and Welfare of the Country. 

From the Congressional Record of May 31, 
1909. 

MARTIN N. JOHNSON, of North Da- 
kota. Mr. President, of course it is 
entirely appropriate for those Senators 
not charged with responsibility to the 
country at this time, like the Senator 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Gore] and the 
Senator from Maryland [Mr. Rayner], 
to afford suitable diversion. We all 
enjoy it. But we are here engaged in 
a very serious business affecting the 
policy and the welfare of the country. 
We might as well accept the challenge 
on this item of bananas as on any- 
thing else. 

The Republican party says to every 
man in every corner of the earth who 
has anything to sell that the American 
people wish to buy and which we our- 
selves can not produce in great abun- 
dance, "Come, and welcome; bring 
j'our wares with you free of duty, free 
of tax and hindrance of any kind, and 
sell them to our people just as cheaply 
as you can." That is something funda- 
mental. There is no difference be- 
tween us as to the amount of money 
we should raise by the Tariff. That is 
not in dispute. But the difference is 
right here in the free list as to what 
things shall come in free and what 
things shall bear a duty. 

The doctrine that the Tariff is a tax 
and is added to the price of the article, 
and is paid by the consumer in every 
case, is an absolute fallac3^ except as 
to such things as bananas, Brazil nuts, 
tea, coffee, India rubber. In all those 
Instances the Tariff would be a reve- 
nue Tariff and would be added to the 
price of the article and be paid by 
the consumer. And so we have none 
of it in the Republican policy. Do you 
tell the American people seriously that 
a duty on potatoes, for instance, of 45 
cents a bushel, which was placed here 



274 



JOHNSON. 



Saturday, will add 45 cents to the price 
of every bushel of potatoes? It is too 
simple for argument. Nobody believes 
that. And of corn and wheat the same 
thing is true. We never have claimed 
that a duty on those articles would 
raise the price by the amount of the 
Tariff. That Is the teaching of our 
opponents. It is too simple for argu- 
ment. There is not a word of truth 
In it. 

Tariff Does Noi Affeci Prices. 

Senators talk about the Tariff rais- 
ing the cost "of living. This amend- 
ment would raise the cost of living. A 
banana is a bread fruit. It has almost 
the same chemical elements as wheat 
bread. A duty on bananas or tea or 
coffee would necessarily be added to 
the price of the article. It would be 
a revenue dutj'. We have none of 
those industries in our soil and cli- 
mate. We can not produce them. We 
can not Protect them. So we Repub- 
licans never place a cent of duty on 
anything of that kind. Take those 
things we can produce in great abun- 
dance; the Tariff does not affect the 
price of those articles, because we con- 
trol the market. 

Take, for instance, a meal, an ex- 
pensive meal, too; a good meal. Es- 
sentially the Tariff does not weigh 
upon any article that' is necessary to 
put upon the American table. Let us 
set a table. The first course is soup. 
We will have oyster soup, ox-tail soup, 
turtle soup, a great variety of soups. 
We have the ox tail, we have the oys- 
ters, we have the turtles. It is not 
necessary to import them. The Tariff 
can not reach them. 

The next course will be fish. Of 
course, if you insist on foreign fish 
that do not swim in our waters, you 
will have to pay a duty, but I am not 
speaking of those luxuries; they are 
for the people who insist on them. We 
can put on that table shad, and black 
bass, and salmon, and whitefish, and 
lake trout, and mountain trout, and 
sunfish, and whales — a great variety of 
fish good enough for the ordinary citi- 
zen — and there is not a cent of duty 
on any of them. 

The Plain, Ordinary American Citizen 
Pays No Tariff on His Food. 

Then, we will take game as the next 
dish in this course dinner. Of course. 



if you are so extravagant as to insist 
on foreign game, we shall perhaps see 
next winter on the Christmas bill of 
fare of our expensive hotels, and you 
can get served up, rhinoceros roast or 
hippopotamus potple or pickled ele- 
phant's feet. If you insist on those 
things, of course you will have to pay 
a duty on them; but for the plain ordi- 
nary American citizen we will have 
elk, and deer, and grouse, and wild 
geese, and wild ducks, and quail, and 
partridge, and venison — a nice variety 
of game. I do not care what the du- 
ties are, we need not Import that. 
There is no way for the tax gatherer 
to get between the hunter and the 
guest at the table. 

Then, we will pass on to the solid 
dishes like meats. Is It necessary to 
pay a duty on the meat that the poor 
man or the wealthy man, the peasant 
or the prince, eats? Not at all, unless 
he insists upon shipping In something 
that can not be produced In this coun- 
try. Then, it is on the free list. Here 
we have roast beef and mutton stew 
and ham and a great variety of meats, 
plenty of thera, good and cheap, with 
not a cent of duty on any of them. 

When it comes to fruits, bananas, 
and Brazil nuts, and everything of 
that kind, that we can not produce, 
they are on the free list under the Re- 
publican policy; and those things that 
are dutiable for the Protection of our 
industries we do not need to ship In. 
I will put on that table apple pie and 
blueberry sauce, and peach brandy, if 
necessary, and strawberries and rasp- 
berries and a great variety of fruits 
of our own production, and there is 
not a cent to be paid to the tax col- 
lector. 

How We Became the Greatest of Sill( Pro- 
ducing Countries. 

In the same way I could go through 
the clothing schedule. Take, for in- 
stance, silk, the most extravagant ar- 
ticle in the clothing schedule. We 
were dependent only a few years ago 
upon France and Germany and Japan 
for silk. Now we are the greatest 
silk-producing country in the world. 
Our nearest competitor Is France. Last 
year they used |9, 000, 000 worth of raw 
silk, and we used $13,000,000 worth of 
raw silk. How do we do that? Well. T 
will tfll 5'ou how we do it. We do l( 



JOHNSOX. Al.bUlOir. IlKYBltUN. 



under Republican policy by building uii 
liome industries, by admitting' free of 
duty everything' that we can not pro- 
duce in great abundance, and raw silk 
is one of the things. 

We can In the South produce raw 
silk. The mulberry tree will grow In 
South Carolina, Florida, and some of 
those States, but to take care of those 
silkworms you must have cheap labor, 
and the faithful hands of children and 
women who will do the chores, who 
will care for the silkworm at 25 cents 
a day. We do not want any American 
woman or child to work for 25 cents 
a day. So under all the parties. Demo- 
crats as well as Republicans, we have 
allowed the raw silk to come in free; 
but under the aegis o : Protection we 
have built up the greatest silk-manu- 
facturing industry in the world. You 
need not pay a cent of duty on silk; 
you ship it in free of duty and manu- 
facture It at home, and keep both the 
silk and the money at home. 



Effect of Protective Duties on Im= 
ports of Food Products. 

From the Congressional Record of May $1, 
jgog. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. If the duties upon bacon and 
hams were removed, it is not at all 
certain that there might be very large 
importations of both articles. It does 
not follow because the rates, being 
Protective, have prevented the impor- 
tations of large quantities, if the rates 
were reduced or removed there would 
not be large importations. That is 
true all through these schedules. These 
rates are Protective, and if they are 
Protective, the importations may be 
small. There may in certain cases be 
nothing at all paid. Still that does 
not take away from the rates their 
Protective character. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I would not at all 
agree to the suggestion that possibly 
removing the duty entirely upon beef, 
for instance, w^ould not result in a 
very large importation, because Can- 
ada is now sending her beef to Eng- 
land, and if she could get into this 
market on a Free-Trade basis, we 
would undoubtedly be deluged with 
Canadian beef. 



The Protective Principle Not Aban- 
doned in Any of the Duties. 

From the Congressional Record of May .•;;, 
1909- 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
Mr. President, my experience has 
taught me that when you talk to the 
farmers and to the others to whom the 
Senator refers they are very apt to 
talk back, and they do not necessarily 
accept the statement that it is suffi- 
cient. They want to know If that is 
sufficient, why the Republican party 
has been doing more than sufficient In 
the way of Protecting them. We have 
talked to these people throughout the 
country during the last and other cam- 
paigns, and we have told them that the 
measure of Protection which the Re- 
publican party gave them was neces- 
sary for their success and for their 
benefit. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The committee and 
the Senate, following the recommenda- 
tions of the committee, have reduced 
the duties on nearly 350 items In the 
bill. They have not in any case re- 
duced them below what was in their 
judgment the Protective point; and It 
is not possible for us to say to the 
people of the United States that in 
making those reductions we have aban- 
doned the Protective principle in any 
one of them. I do not Intend to go 
before the people of this country, or 
to have anybody else go before the 
people of this country, and say that we 
have abandoned the Protective policy 
because we have reduced in our judg- 
ment the duties imposed by some of 
these paragraphs. 

Mr. HEYBURN. The committee has 
tended to confirm that in my mind 
which they now count an error. The 
field of information in regard to this 
matter is open to all of us. There is 
no Member of this body who has stood 
for the Protective Tariff policy and 
principle longer than I have so far as 
it is represented by the Republican 
party to-day. I would not be a Re- 
publican one hour if it were not that 
it stands for the Protective-Tariff pol- 
icy. 

Duty on Hams and Bacon. 

The Senator from Rhode Island says 
that 3% cents will protect this indus- 
try fully as well as 4 cents. That Is 
a question upon which men may differ. 



276 



HEYBURN. CUMMINS. BEVERIDGE. SMOOT. 



We have grown up in the great North- 
west the industry represented by these 
items in a measure that is little ap- 
prehended by those who only know us 
upon the map. There have been years 
in that country when wheat on the 
market would not bring 20 cents a 
bushel, when we brought in hogs by 
hundreds and thousands and fed the 
wheat to them. It was the best market 
we could get. I know communities to- 
day as large as some of the States that 
have no transportation for their grain. 
They raise the wheat and they raise 
the pigs, and they feed the wheat to 
the pigs and drive the pork to the 
market on foot. I have seen vast 
herds of these animals bringing down 
the farmer's crop to the railroad to be 
converted into a marketable com- 
modity, and sold not to the meat trust, 
but the surplus of these ranches sold 
Into the markets of consumption. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I ask, Do your 
farmers believe that this duty on ba- 
con and hams affects the price of their 
hogs? Do you think so? 

Mr. HEYBURN. Does the Senator 
believe that the duty on wheat affects 
the price of wheat? 

Mr. CUMMINS. I do not. 

What Inieresi Has the Farmer in Protec- 
t/on? 

Mr. HEYBURN. Then the Senator 
and I do not belong to the same school 
of politics. When I went among those 
farmers in the Kootenai Valley last 
year, and they said to me: "What 
Interest has the farmer in Protection?" 
I said, "Four dollars a ton on your 
hay." They have lines of stacks of 
It there, such as you never saw out- 
side of the Platte. I said, "You have 
?25 a head on your horses," so much 
on your swine, so much on j'our sheep, 
so much on your vegetables, and so 
much on all the commodities you pro- 
duce. They opened their eyes, and 
they said: "I guess this old Republican 
party is worth inquiring into." They 
wanted to know more about it, and the 
more I told them the better they liked 
the principles, and that one county 
gave 2,000 Republican majority, when 
It used to go Democratic. 

Mr. President, the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Aldrich] has ex- 
pressed exactly the political doctrine 
to which I adhere. I have already 



stated repeatedly to the Senator from 
Georgia [Mr. Bacon] that the duty Is 
not added to the cost of the article, 
but that it is a barrier against the 
intrusion of a man who comes In to 
undersell you. The price which the 
American producer receives is a fair 
price for his labor upon the standard 
of American labor and the Ajnerlcan 
method of doing business. We do not 
have to inquire what the motives or 
the intentions of the intruder are. We 
know that the compensation which the 
producer in this country receives — 
whether he is a producer of labor or of 
material or of whatever you may 
choose — that the compensation is based 
upon a fair remuneration to the pro- 
ducer. That is the basis. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Then, according 
to the last statement, the Senator from 
Idaho did not tell the farmers of the 
Kootenai Valley that they were get- 
ting $4 a ton extra for their hay? 

Mr. HEYBURN. They were not. 
They were getting what their labor 
was worth; they were getting what 
they were entitled to receive on an 
American basis, and not on the basis 
of some foreign country. 

I am not speaking for Idaho alone In 
this matter. It is high time that we 
take stock and ascertain where we 
stand here in regard to this principle 
for which the Republican party stands. 
We will not whittle it away. A good 
many millions of American people in- 
dorsed it only a few months ago. You 
could not go into Idaho and win for 
the Republican party and eliminate the 
Tariff from the presentation of your 
cause. They are, as I am. Republican, 
because they believe In the principles 
contained in that platform which I 
read to 3'^ou a few moments ago; and 
I do not propose to go back In the 
next campaign in Idaho and apologize 
to them for the Republican party for 
Its loyalty to the principles of Pro- 
tection. 



Sound, Rational and Economic Prin- 
ciple Governing the Cotton Sched- 
ule. 

From the Congressional Record of June I, 
1909. 
REED SMOOT, of Utah. Mr. Presi- 
dent, the amendments proposed by the 



SMOOT. 



2t7 



Finance Committee to tfie cotton sciied- 
dules are tlie work of that committee, 
prepared under its direction, In lan- 
guage which, in their judgment, best 
meets their approval regardless of who 
may have suggested particular phrase- 
ology. The committee was concerned 
with results, not with technical au- 
thorship. Pertinent suggestions of 
manufacturers, importers, the Ways 
and Means Committee, customs officials 
and the language of the House bill, 
were accepted or rejected as they met 
the approval of the committee, and the 
bill was reported reflecting the views 
of no man or men except the commit- 
tee, and calculated to levy fair, uni- 
form rates of duty, producing the most 
possible revenue, and levying an 
equivalent ad valorem less than that 
provided by the Dingley law as con- 
templated by the Congress. 

The records of the Senate show that 
tliis work proceeded by subcommittee 
long before the Ways and Means Com- 
mittee commenced its work, and men. 
Including certain customs officials, 
were detailed to gather such informa- 
tion and suggestions as would en- 
lighten the committee as to present 
administration of the law and needed 
amendments to produce unifonnity 
where wanting. 

The fact that manufacturers or im- 
porters expressed satisfaction with 
existing laws In no sense controlled 
the efforts of the committee. It re- 
quires no exercise of intelligence to 
know that such in many cases might 
prove absolutely fatal. 

In the enactment of a Tariff law 
there are other parties concerned than 
the manufacturers and the importers 
of the article. The United States Gov- 
ernment is Immediately concerned that 
proper and consistent revenues be col- 
lected upon all dutiable articles. The 
public with money available for in- 
vestment is also concerned that duties 
should not be levied solely for the 
Protection of existing manufacturers 
or for the advantage of existing im- 
porters. Such uniform and consistent 
duties should be levied as will not con- 
serve monopoly of any lines, and that 
all may have an equal opportunity for 
the Investment of capital and the em- 
barkment in every possible legitimate 
enterprise. In that view the commit- 
tee proceeded. 



Changes Necessitated by Experience. 

Upon examination of the cotton 
schedule of the Dingley law as admin- 
istered to-day it was found vastly dif- 
ferent from that contemplated by the 
Congress when enacted and as admin- 
istered for several years immediately 
after enactment. It was ascertained 
by the committee that by a constant 
process of elimination of certain of its 
provisions In the scope intended by 
Congress goods of the highest value 
and classes are coming in at the low- 
est rates; goods of low value are com- 
ing in at high rates, and goods of the 
same value when imported under one 
paragraph are paying a vastly differ- 
ent rate than when imported under 
another paragraph, all resulting in a 
reduction of about 20 per cent In the 
rates of duty contemplated in the 
Dingley law. 

The statement that this provision In 
the Senate bill increases the duties 
from 7.63 per cent to 42.75 per cent Is 
not borne out upon analysis. The true 
statement of the situation as to this 
paragraph is that under the Senate 
bill the high-priced goods, of 16 cents 
per square yard, will take a higher 
rate than 7.63 per cent; while many of 
the goods previously coming in as 
etamines, at 60 per cent, will come in 
at a -fair rate of between 25 and 40 
per cent ad valorem, according to 
value, as provided in the added pro- 
visions of this paragraph, and there 
will be an equitable distribution in the 
levies of duty in accordance with the 
value of the article. 

It has been charged upon this floor 
that the Senate changes are reckless 
and unintelligent. This Is not true. 
These changes follow a fixed principle, 
the same that underlies the whole 
framework of the Dingley law. 

This principle was the sound, ra- 
tional, and economic one that cotton 
cloth of the same value and condition 
should pay the same rate of duty. 

Average Rates Lower Titan the Dingley 
Law. 

These tables demonstrate the claims 
asserted by the Senator from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Aldrich] and the Senator 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge] that 
the Senate bill provides average rates 
lower than the Dingley law. They 
show the average ad valorem rates 



iits 



SMOOT. LODGE. 



upon the cotton fabric and article 
paragraphs to be, for 1898, 43.52 per 
cent; for 1899, 44.19 per cent; for 1900. 
43.89 per cent, as against 38.66 per 
cent for 1907, and the estimated rate 
under the Senate bill of 43.58 per cent. 

The committee took into considera- 
tion what was necessary to repair the 
Dingley law, not to give the entire 
Protection afforded by that law, but 
to give such partial Protection as 
would be adequate for the demands of 
the present day for the manufacturing 
interests of the country. Instead of 
approaching the high rate of 60 per 
cent afforded in the Dingley law, and 
an average of about 48.50 per cent 
upon all the cotton cloth and article 
schedules, the new provisions adopted 
the average rate of not more than 
43.50 per cent, and so constructed all 
the schedules that a uniform and com- 
plete system of duties shall be col- 
lected. 

I have said "not more than 43.50 per 
cent," for while tabulations show this 
average rate, it must be borne in mind 
these are estimated upon averages be- 
tween the lines adopted. As a matter 
of fact, importations will mostly be 
nearer the low line, which undoubtedly 
will reduce this average rate. 

An Emergency which Demanded Proper 
Action. 

The committee believed It the part 
of wisdom, that would be concurred 
in not alone by Congress, but by the 
whole country, that this was an emer- 
gency which demanded proper action 
by the Congress. The committee, 
therefore, did not feel itself bound by 
the stated interests of manufacturers 
in certain lines or importers in certain 
lines, who may or may not have pro- 
ceeded to divide up the field, but the 
committee believed it Infinitely better 
for the welfare of the whole country 
that a law should be established which 
would invite all capital to Invest In 
every line of cotton manufacture, and 
which by affording uniform Protection 
on the higher lines of cotton manufac- 
tures would withdraw the northern 
manufacturers from a contest with the 
southern manufacturers in an inevita- 
ble and neces.sary effort to regain the 
field of trade now occupied by the latter. 
Believing It better that there be ade- 
quate Protective duties against the Im- 



portations of high-class manufactures 
believing It better to make good the 
Dingley guaranty to the manufacturers 
of high-class cotton goods of a mar 
ket for these goods in this country 
which could not be undersold by for- 
eign manufacturers, the Senate com- 
mittee presents this bill. 

And the committee submits that the 
comprehensive plan which is adopted, 
which, in fact, lowers the equivalent 
ad valorem rates of duty intended In 
the Dingley law under this schedule, 
and at the same time best serves the 
interests of the great cotton industry 
of the whole country, both North and 
South; which insures the employment 
of thousands of workmen and millions 
of spindles, North and South; which 
guarantees a home market for the raw 
cotton of the South, will receive the 
approval of the Congress and of the 
whole country. - 

This bill, as shown, does not in- 
crease the average ad valorems; It 
more proportionately distributes them. 
They are now lower than the specifics 
below them. They were intended In 
the Dingley law to be higher than 
those specifics. The question here 
which this Congress must decide Is, 
Will we, when the country Is growing 
richer and richer, dem^anding finer cot- 
ton fabrics and novelties, surrender 
this great market to the foreign man- 
ufacturers by maintaining less rates of 
duty on high-grade than on low-grade 
cottons? Will we deny our manufac- 
turers the same Protection in this field 
as they have in the field of low-grade 
cottons? Will w^e make good our 
Dingley promises on the high-grade 
cottons for the prosperity, peace, and 
welfare of all sections and all the peo- 
ple? 

The Senate bill adopts this latter 
course. It is for the Congress to de- 
cide. The committee submits Its 
measure in confidence of approval. 



1 



What Was Said and Done Concern- 
ing Tariff Revision by the Repub= 
lican Convention of 1908. 

From the Congressional Record of June 2, 
J909, 
HENRY CABOT LODGE, of Massa- 
chusetts. Mr. President, I am going 
to begin by stating very brleflj' what 



LODGE. 



279 



I consider to be the true nature of the 
revision with which this Congress is 
charged, because I think this cotton 
schedule is a very fair example of 
what a proper revision of the existing 
Tariff law should be. 

Early in this debate the Senator 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Aldrich] and 
I happened to state incidentally that 
the Republican declaration of princi- 
ples contained no pledge or promise 
of a revision downward or a revision 
upward. For that statement we were 
severely criticised. We could not have 
been more severely criticised if we 
had uttered a falsehood instead of 
stating, as we did, the exact truth. I 
desire, therefore, to call attention very 
briefly to what was actually said and 
done by the Republican national con- 
vention at Chicago. I had the honor 
to preside for three days over that 
convention after It was organized. I 
had been at Chicago for ten days 
previously, in attendance upon the na- 
tional committee. I think I saw and 
spoke w^ith as many delegates as any- 
one there. I am certain I followed all 
the proceedings of that convention 
with the closest possible attention. If 
the words "downward revision" or 
"upward revision" occurred in any offi- 
cial utterance, or were suggested by 
any delegate, they entirely escaped my 
notice; but as memory is fallible, I 
have taken occasion to look over the 
official stenographic report of the pro- 
ceedings of the convention. The offi- 
cers of the convention who spoke, and 
who in a sense, I suppose, may be con- 
sidered to have expressed the vieAvs of 
the convention and the policies of the 
party, as they understood them, were 
the temporary and the permanent 
chairmen. 

What Temporary Chairman Burrows Said. 

The temporary chairman, the senior 
Senator from Michigan [Mr. Burrows], 
in referring to the Tariff, said: 

In this connection it can be safely 
promised that whatever revision or re- 
adjustment takes place under the control 
of the Republican party, it will give just 
and adequate Protection to American in- 
dustries and American labor, and defend 
the American market against unjust and 
unequal aggression from whatever quar- 
ter it may come. It will be a revision 
that will extinguish the fire in no Amer- 
ican mill or put out the light of hope in 
no American home. 

That certainly was as excellent and 



admirable a statement as it was plain 
and direct. It contains no allusion to 
what direction revision of the Tariff 
should take. 

The permanent chairman made no 
allusion to the Tariff whatever In his 
speech. He dealt with other ques- 
tions. 

The Republican platform was then 
reported, and contains the paragraph 
which has been read here. I will not 
read it all again, but I will ask that it 
be printed. 

I call attention to the fact that this 
clause of the Republican platform de- 
clared for a revision of the Tariff by a 
special session of Congress, and laid 
down the principle upon which that 
revision should be made. It also fa- 
vored the establishment of the maxi- 
mum and minimum rates, and con- 
cluded with a paragraph about the 
Tariff between this country and the 
Philippines. It said nothing as to 
what the revision should be or what 
direction it should take. 

Mr. President, nothing has been so 
absolutely misrepresented as the point 
I am now going to make. As a matter 
of fact the revision made by the House, 
the revision reported by the Senate 
committee, the revision on which we 
are now engaged, is a revision down- 
ward. If you are to call it a revision 
downward when a majority of the 
changes in rates are reductions and 
not advances, it is 

Overwhelmingly a Revision Downward. 

The pamphlet which was prepared 
shows 379 reductions. Remember that 
the standard of revision is not what 
the House passed as their form of re- 
vision. That which we are revising is 
the Dingley Act, the existing law, and 
taking the bill as it came from the 
Committee on Finance, Including the 
House changes and our changes, there 
are 379 reductions and some 33 in- 
creases, practically every one of the 
Increases being on articles of luxury, 
like wines or perfumed soaps or per- 
fumery, and the rest very largely on 
agricultural products. 

Let me say first, Mr. President, that 
I am not concerned to defend or up- 
hold or explain amendments offered by 
Mr. Lippitt and Mr. MacCoU to the 
House committee and not adopted. 
Among the amendments they suggest- 



280 



LODGE. 



ed was one which was embodied In 
the House bill. Whether it was put in 
there because they suggested it or be- 
cause the House committee of their 
own motion thought it was a proper 
duty to put in, I do not pretend to 
say. I see no reason why, if it was 
suggested to the Committee on Ways 
and Means and they thought it a good 
suggestion, they should not put it in, 
even if the suggestion came from an 
American manufacturer. 

An American Manufacturer Quite as En- 
titled to Consideration as An Im- 
porter. 

I think an American manufacturer Is 
quite as entitled to the consideration 
of a committee and of the country as 
foreign importers, and there has been 
no lack of suggestions from the latter. 
If the importers made good sugges- 
tions they would be adopted, and some 
suggestions made by Importers on 
classifications, I think, have been 
adopted in both Houses. But to me 
the suggestions of American manufac- 
turers, able and honorable men em- 
ploying American labor, would always 
have preference. The other sugges- 
tions about the counting of filaments, 
of which so much has been said, have 
not been adopted by either House, and 
I am not going to waste time over that 
proposition, which is only brought for- 
ward to "fright us with false fire." 

Prices Have Risen in Europe, but Labor 
Has Hot Risen in Europe. 

For the same reason that sugar has 
not risen — because there is an over- 
supply. We were shown the other day 
— I do not know whether the Senator 
from Rhode Island printed it; it ought 
to be printed — a report of the George 
P. Peabody fund in London, which 
rents homes to working people. It 
rents them. It is not a charity in any 
sense. It shows that they have over 
19,000 people living there, and the 
heads of the families are engaged in 
skilled trades. They are not the poor- 
est class or the workers on the streets; 
they are skilled mechanics. 

The average weekly earnings of the 
head of each family in residence at the 
close of the year was 1£ Is. 9d. In the 
cases in which the governors pay, the 
rates, the average weekly charge, in- 
cluding the rates, of each dwelling 



was 5s. 4d. a week, and of each room 
2s. 4d. The rent in all cases Includes 
the free use of water, laundries, scul- 
leries, and bathrooms. 

The mean population during the 
year was 19,914, showing a density, 
after taking into account the occupied 
portion only of the Heme Hill and 
Tottenham estates, of 571 people to 
the acre, or 9 times that of London. 
An average wage of $5.25 a week 
among skilled mechanics, taken at 
hazard from all trades in London, 
gives a vivid idea of this labor with 
which our labor would have to com- 
pete if it were not protected by the 
Tariff. 

Mr. President, what is the use, In the 
face of facts like these, of talking 
about wages being the same there as 
here? The reason why the gold does 
not affect those wages is because there 
are more men than there is work. If 
you apply It to the labor in this coun- 
try, you will find that with the gold 
force bringing with It increased prices, 
bringing with it prosperity, if you 
please, wages go up in the same way, 
because the supply of labor is not ex- 
cessive. 

Advances in Wages in the Hew England 
Mills. 

I have shown you what the ad* 
vances In wages were in the New Eng- 
land mills. They had advanced in 
prosperity, and the advance in wages 
was 32 per cent. It is the same in 
the woolen mills. The figures are all 
printed in the Tariff hearings. The 
Government Manufacturing Bulletin of 
1905 shows that the wages in the cot- 
ton industry in those five years, from 
1900 to 1905, had risen 10 per cent. 
The wages abroad have not risen as 
they have risen here. Therefore, when 
we meet their competition, we are 
meeting a competition in which we are 
fatally handicapped, if we meet them 
on equal terms of Tariff, by their 
lower rate of wages. We have to pay 
more for what we consume because 
gold is carrying up the price of all 
articles throughout the world. Look 
at the figures I gave of the food prod- 
ucts. Textiles fell, minerals fell, ma- 
terials fell, but the food products of 
the world did not fall. With the great 
depression of business, which was 
world-wide, the food products — animal 



LODGE. 



1281 



food and vegetable food — gained a 
point absolutely In the teeth of the 
depression of last year. 

Prices Not Materially Affected by the 
Tariff. 

Mr. President, in talking about 
prices let us be fair. Prices are not 
going to be affected materially by the 
Tariff. The things that cost the peo- 
ple most, the absolute necessaries of 
food, are not going to be got rid of by 
a change in the Tariff. 

Mr. President, I wanted to call atten- 
tion to a few facts in regard to the 
great cotton industry. In 1905 there 
were 310.000 people in the United 
States earning wages in the cotton in- 
dustry. In Massachusetts there were 
88,033 in 1905, and in 1900 there were 
92,085. The maximum prior to 1905 
was 100,982. The capital was $605,100,- 
164. 

During this time, which has been a 
period of prosperity, until within a 
year, wages have been advanced in 
those industries, as I have shown, 32 
per cent, and the hours of labor have 
been shortened in Massachusetts to 
fifty-six hours per week and to flfty- 
eight in the other New England States. 
Mr. ALDRICH. To flfty-six in Rhode 
Island. 

Mr. LODGE. To fifty-six in Rhode 
Island also. The wages paid out were 
$94,377,696, and, as I also pointed out, 
the increase since 1900 to 1905 was 
10.9 per cent; that is, there was 214 
per cent increase in the number of 
wage-earners and an increase in 
wages of 10.9 per cent. 

Under the general cotton products, 
we imported $31,869,000 worth; under 
cotton laces, $39,737,000; and under 
wearing apparel, $1,358,000, making a 
total of $73,964,000. 

All Could Be Made Here Without Advanc- 
ing Prices. 

Mr. President, almost all ,of that 
could be made here without advancing 
prices to the consumer, if we can be 
allowed to take possession of our own 
market. There were 310,458 wage- 
earners in 1905. That means probably 
one million and a quarter people who 
derived their earnings from the mills. 
There are 155,000 in New England. 
There are 31,000 in the Middle States. 
There are 120,000 in the South. There 



are 2,000 In the Western States. That 
is a great body of people, Mr. Presi- 
dent. We hear a great deal in this de- 
bate about consumers. All those peo- 
ple are consumers. They are also buy- 
ers. They buy rice with duty of 100 
per cent. They buy tobacco, with its 
eighty-odd per cent duty. They buy 
all the articles of the agricultural 
schedule, and they do not complain. 

It is impossible to draw a distinction 
between consumer and producer. These 
people are entitled to the same con- 
sideration as every other body of 
American citizens. They are a large, 
industrious body. You can not bring 
down the duties on what they make 
without affecting them. The only flex- 
ible point that remains in the cotton 
industry is wages. Domestic competi- 
tion, in the absence of all combina- 
tions and trusts, has been sharp and 
brought them close together. If you 
lower duties, you lower wages or de- 
prive all these people of employment. 

The Old "Robber Baron" Resurrected. 

I was interested the other day, Mr. 
President, when the Senator from 
Georgia brought out my dear old 
friend, the "robber baron." I have not 
heard of him for a great many years. 
We have had so many monopolists 
and trusts that the "robber baron" 
goes back almost to the earlier Vic- 
torian times and the days of the Man- 
chester school, when the view which 
the English people took was that 
Free-Trade of the Manchester school 
variety was not only true economically, 
but that it was also true morally; and 
anyone who questioned It was a de- 
praved person, ready to question the 
procession of the equinoxes or the Ten 
Commandments. We have passed a 
good way beyond that belief and Its 
queer economic fallacies; but the "rob- 
ber baron," riding on his forays Into 
the rest of the country, which is just 
as able to make cotton goods as New 
England, or New York, or Pennsyl- 
vania, or South Carolina, belongs to 
that old period. When I heard of him 
once more, it carried me back to the 
time of the Mills bill, when the "rob- 
ber baron" rode up and down with 
great vigor in our debates. I want to 
quote something that Mr. Reed then 
said about him. Mr. Reed had a way 
of saying a wise and penetrating thing 



282 



LODGE. FRltE. 



more eplgrammatically, and putting 
more wisdom into an epigram, than 
any man I iiave ever seen in public 
life. In his speech on the Mills bill 
he said this: 

"They Think li's Political Economy." 

After all, this exaggerated idea of the 
profits of manufacturers is at the bottom 
of the chairman's feelings. Whenever I 
walk through the streets of that Demo- 
cratic importing city of New York and 
look at the brownstone fronts my gorge 
always rises. I can never understand 
why the virtue which I know is on the 
sidewalk is not thus rewarded. I do not 
feel kindly to the people inside. But 
when I feel that way I know what the 
feeling is. It is good, honest, high- 
minded envy. When some other gentle- 
men have the same feeling they think 
it's political economy. 

Look at the feeling of our extreme 
Western people on the Pacific coast 
against the importation of Asiatic la- 
bor. There is no use in talking 
"laissez faire," or "buying in the 
cheapest and selling in the dearest 
market" to them; they do not propose 
to have that competition at their doors. 
Their instinct is absolutely right, in 
my judgment; and that instinct is just 
as strong among the people on the 
other side of the imaginary line In 
British Columbia. The men of our race 
here do not propose to have their 
standard of living lowered to such a 
point; they will not endure it; and the 
Introduction of a lower-priced labor 
Is just the same in its effects, whether 
It comes In the form of a man or of 
the man's work in the goods. 

I ask for no extravagant Protection: 
but here is a great Industry, with 

Over a Million People Dependent Upon It. 

An industry that can be set up any- 
where. I say that it is for the interest 
of this entire country that this indus- 
try should be fostered and built up. 
It is small benefit to the people of 
this country If you lower the price a 
little on mercerized goods to those 
who buy at the department stores in 
New York and elsewhere and throw 
out of employment thousands of work- 
ing people scattered from Maine to 
Florida. It is more important to us 
to have those people employed. That 
Is what I care about. 

My own interest in these mills is 
next to nothing; but my interest in the 
welfare of that manufacturing popula- 
tion In Massachusetts Is Intense. We 



have got 488,000 people in my State 
engaged as operatives in all forms of 
manufacture. The life of the State is 
there. It is easy enough to say with 
cheerful indifference, as the Senator 
from Kansas said, that if the Industry 
does not pay, let them find employ- 
ment somewhere else. That is a hard 
measure, Mr. President. Their labor, 
their bread, is all there; their capital is 
there in the skill of their practical 
hands. It is all they have got, and 
they have been given opportunity for 
labor and Protected in it by the Gov- 
ernment. They are grateful for it. 
They sent their own represenatives 
here to the Committee on Ways and 
Means to speak for Protection. They 
are as eager for it, more eager than 
anyone else. It is for those people I 
plead. It is not that the manufacturer 
may make more money. I am not anx- 
ious about the capitalist. He can take 
his capital and go to China, If he 
chooses, and make money. I am not 
worrying over him; but I am worry- 
ing over the thousands of people in 
those mills whose homes, whose lives, 
whose hopes, whose everything are 
bound up in this great industry. What 
matter does it make whether they live 
in Massachusetts or in South Carolina? 
They are Americans. Let us give them 
a chance to make all the goods they 
can. Domestic competition has kept 
the price down, and it will keep it 
down, but give these wage-earners a 
chance to work. 



Low Profits Realized by Cotton Mill 
Owners. 

From the Congressional Record of June 2, 
1909- 

WILLIAM P. FRYE, of Maine. Mr. 
President, the last remark of the Sen- 
ator from Minnesota [Mr. Nelson] 
leads me to violate a studied purpose 
to vote and not talk; and it was also 
suggested by the Senator from Okla- 
homa [Mr. Gore], who cited the Bates 
mill In my own city as an Illustration 
of remarkable profits. 

I am familiar with the Bates mill. I 
can remember when it scaled down, by 
the authority of the legislature, 75 per 
cent of its stock. It subsequently in- 
creased Its stock to 11,200,000, and it 
has been paying dividends on ' the 
11,200.000, while it has a productive 



FRYE. ALDRICH. 



283 



capacity of at least $3,000,000, and on 
that productive capacity it has not 
paid over 6 per cent. It has more ma- 
chinery to the square foot than any 
other mill in the United States. Fortu- 
nately, it made a line of goods like 
the Amoskeaff mill, and It has been 
profitable. But, at the same time, the 
Continental mill, an enormous struc- 
ture, built, I should say, twenty-four 
years ago, never paid a dividend until 
last year, and then only 4 per cent. In 
addition to that, the Continental mill, 
by authority of the legislature, re- 
duced its capital one-half. 

Then again, the Hill mill, with fine 
factories of large capacity, have for 
the last ten years been paying divi- 
dends most of the time at 4 per cent, 
and the stock, $100 being the par 
value, went down to $35. By the au- 
thority of the legislature this last 
year thej' cut down their capital one- 
half. 

Again, the Lewiston mill, In the 
same city, some twenty years ago, 
finding it could make nothing, gave up 
the business of manufacturing. Its 
machinery and its factory stood for 
fifteen years without any use what- 
ever. Then the mill and machinery 
were sold at auction for one-tenth of 
the original cost. 

In making up these computations of 
profits nothing is said about the mills 
which have been unfortunate. If an 
average could be drawn of all the cot- 
ton mills of the United States, you 
would not find that the average would 
be over 6 per cent. 



Foreign Interference with the Mak= 
ing of American Tariffs. 

From the Congressional Record of June S) 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. I repeat that any attempt on 
the part of any government at any 
time to influence the legislation of 
Congress upon Tariff matters is im- 
pertinent. I say that of any such at- 
tempt. I do not say that the German 
Government has made any such at- 
tempt in this case; but I say, If it has, 
it would be impertinent, or If any 
government makes that attempt it 
would be impertinent. 

I will say further that an attempt to 
Influence the legislation of Congress 



by furnishing anonymous statements 
which can not be used by the Govern- 
ment Itself for the enforcement of Its 
own laws Is a thing which should be 
deprecated by every Senator of the 
United States, whatever may be his 
views upon this question. 

Mr. President, as to the statement 
now made by the Senator from Mis- 
souri there Is no question; and I cer- 
tainly would not have undertaken to 
criticise the statements which were 
sent to us If they had simply fur- 
nished facts without reference to legis- 
lation which was going on in the 
United States; but these gentlemen 
were not satisfied with furnishing 
facts, they undertook to answer state- 
ments and to deny statements made by 
American producers with a view of in- 
fluencing our legislation. That Is what 
I am objecting to, and that Is where 
the impertinence In this case comes In. 

Our Greatest Rivals in the Industrial and 
Commercial World. 

No. It will not do to say that I 
made any attack of any kind upon the 
German nation or upon Its representa- 
tives. They have followed the policy 
of Protection In recent years to an ex- 
tent that no other nation in the world 
has, not only by their legislation, but 
by regulations, by rebates in freight, 
and in a thousand different ways of 
which we have never thought. They 
have built up the industries of Ger- 
many to an extent which Is greater 
than that of any other nation except 
the United States. They are entering 
the markets of the world In competi- 
tion with Great Britain, and with 
France, and ourselves. They are enter- 
ing those markets encouraged and 
Protected by the full force of the Ger- 
man Government on all occasions, and 
the representatives of that ■ govern- 
ment would be the last people In the 
world to expect their interests to be 
paraded in the Senate of the United 
States as reasons why we should not 
follow the policy which the interests 
of this people and of their Interests 
dictate. They have a right to be 
friendly with us. But they are rivals. 
They are our greatest rivals In the 
Industrial and commercial world, and 
while they are Protectionists, while 
they are carefully guarding the In- 
terests of their people, they would 



284 



ALDRICH. DEPEW. BRADLEY. 



never consent, in my judg-ment, to 
have the interests of their manufac- 
turers sent here to help a party here 
or a policy here which would be de- 
structive of the interests of the United 
States. 



Democratic Zeal in Behalf of the 
Interests of Foreign Competitors. 

From the Congressional Record of June 3, 
1909. 

CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, of New 
York. I think whatever may be the 
failure on the part of the chairman of 
the Finance Committee and myself to 
say the proper thing to placate the 
sensibilities of the German Govern- 
ment, all that deficiency has been 
amply met by the eloquent, able, in- 
cisive defense of the German Gov- 
ernment which has been made by the 
Senator from Missouri. I do not think 
that any Senator, nor even Prince von 
Bulow himself, could have better pre- 
sented the case of Germany than it 
has been presented by my friend from 
Missouri. Every element of rhetoric, 
every resource of oratory, every crea- 
tion of logic, and every appeal to Ger- 
man patriotism has had its full satis- 
faction in the admirable presentation 
of the German case by my friend 
from Missouri. 

Just one word further. The detail 
with which the Germans are entering 
our country to compete in everything' 
is evidenced in the lithographs which 
we have all received. Every town in 
the State of Missouri that has a school- 
house that will hold 500 people, or a 
railway station which is the admira- 
tion of the neighborhood, has a post 
card revealing the beauties of this 
piece of architecture, and on it is 
"made in Germany." The same is true 
of every other State in the Union. The 
sightseer in Washington is met at 
every turn by a boy asking the tourist 
to buy a post card as a souvenir of the 
capital of his country, and when he 
admires the picture of the White House 
or the Capitol or the Library he dis- 
covers that it was made in Germany. 

li Makes a Difference Wfiose Advice Is 
Taken. 

Mr. ALDRICH. If the Senator from 
Missouri should come here, as he has 
pn several occasions, and make a 



statement that American manufactur- 
ers were wrong in their conclusions, 
and upon his own responsibility as a 
Senator say that the rates ought not 
to be put up, I have no objection to 
that at all. But the Senator from 
Missouri comes here with a statement, 
which he says Is a statement of the 
German Government, and produces fig- 
ures which he says are official figures 
in answer to the request of the repre- 
sentative of the United States in Ger- 
many. Does the Senator suppose that 
Mr. Hill, the ambassador of the United 
States in Germany, asked the opinion 
of the Nuremberg Chamber of Com- 
merce whether the particular rates 
which we propose to fix in our Tariff 
bill were too high? Is that the pur- 
pose of this information? I think not. 

Mr. STONE. I do not care whether 
it is testimony coming from the lips 
of one man or another; nor whether 
he lives in America, in Germany, or In 
any other country. All I want to know 
Is the actual truth. 

Mr. ALDRICH. It makes a great dif- 
ference to me, and I hope to a large 
majority of the Senate, whether we are 
to take the opinion and follow the ad- 
vice of men who are interested In de- 
stroying American Industries or those 
who are engaged In building them up 
In this country. 



*if There Is Anything on Earth I 
Do Not Like, It Is a Spotted Pro- 
tectionist!" 

From the Congressional Record of June 4, 
1909. 

WILLIAM O. BRADLEY, of Ken- 
tucky. Senators talk about reducing 
the wages of labor. I know there are 
some gentlemen on the floor of the 
Senate who talk eloquently upon the 
subject of Protection, who, as soon as 
the question of jute Is raised, vacate 
their seats and run Into the cloakroom. 
Why? They are the very Senators In 
this body who are for the highest Pro- 
tection on manufactured jute, because 
it is in their own section, and they 
are willing to sacrifice the farmer of 
this country, to Injure the hemp 
grower and the flax grower, but they 
are not willing to sacrifice the jute 
manufacturer in their own section. 

In tlie language of the Senator fronj 



BRADLEY. SMITH. 



285 



West Virginia [Mr. Elklns], If there is 
anything on earth I do not like, It is a 
spotted Protectionist. This doctrine Is 
right, or it is wrong. If Protection is 
right upon one article, it is right upon 
all where that article needs Protec- 
tion in order to foster the industry. 

I want Senators to indulge me while 
I speak under this state of alarm. It 
Is a strange thing to me, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that there is no Protection to the 
farmer in flax or hemp. It is a strange 
thing to me that 4,700,000 tons of flax 
straw in your States are burned up 
and go up In smoke every year be- 
cause you can not compete with jute. 

You want Protection for lemons in 
California. I believe in Protecting 
lemons In California. [Laughter.] 
You want Protection for lumber in the 
State of Washington. All right; I be- 
lieve In Protecting lumber in the State 
of Washington, [Laughter.] You 
want Protection for coal and iron in 
West Virginia and Alabama, All 
right; I believe in Protecting coal and 
Iron. [Laughter,] 

"/ Believe in Protecting Everything tiiat 
Needs Protection." 

Now, I want to know whether other 
Senators are equally as fair and as 
honest in this respect. You say you 
have not enough Tariff on jute man- 
ufactures; that if you have a duty on 
jute you must Increase it on your jute 
manufactures. If that is true, increase 
It. Increase It; that is your business. 
[Laughter.] But, in the name of jus- 
tice, do not Protect your jute manu- 
facturers when you refuse to Protect 
the farmer from the importation of 
free jute. If there is anything In this 
world that is Imported into the United 
States free, that is absolutely a source 
of disgust to an American citizen, it is 
jute. [Laughter.] Where does jute 
come from? Who are the people who 
make jute? Heathens; yellow men, 
spotted men, everything on earth but 
white men. They go out and work in 
the fields. I had some pictures of 
some of them the other day. I wish 
you could see them. They have never 
found out that the day of fig leaves la 
past. [Laughter.] And that is the 
sort of degraded labor that you re- 
ward In free America by allowing jute 
to come to your shores unprotected. 

I appeal to the Senate for justice in 



this matter. It is true I come from 
the State of Kentucky, but I am not 
ashamed of that. There is no better 
State on this earth than Kentucky. 
Kentucky is like a man's wife was 
when she said that there never was a 
better woman on earth than she was 
as long as her husband would let her 
have her own way. [Laughter.] 

Why should we not have this Pro- 
tection? What Is the reason why we 
should not have it? Are we a part of 
this country or not? We pay more 
internal revenue [laughter] than any 
State in this Union except two, 
[Laughter.] 



•'We Are Not Called Upon to Equal- 
ize the Standard of Living Be- 
tween the Woolen Workers of Ger- 
many and Our Own." 

From the Congressional Record of June 4, 
1909. 
WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Michi- 
gan. Mr. President, yesterday I in- 
terrupted the Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. LaFollette] for the purpose of 
discussing the "German report," so 
called. The Senator from Wisconsin 
said that he did not care for any sur- 
mise as to the possible effect or pur- 
port of the report. 1 held in my hand 
at the time I addressed the Chair and 
Interrupted the Senator from Wiscon- 
sin the following from the Augsburg 
(Germany) Chamber of Commerce, and 
I was about to read this sentence con- 
cerning the wage in the cotton Indus- 
try: 

T^^hile the average wage of a weaver 
of ordinary efficiency runs from $3.75 to 
$4.50 per week, this sum is often ex- 
ceeded. The probable difference in favor 
of the American workman is in the pro- 
portion of 2 or 21/2 to 1. This, however, 
is practically equalized by the fact that 
the standard of living is nearly twice as 
high in America as in Germany, 

What I wanted to say yesterday to 
the Senator from Wisconsin and what 
I propose to say now is this, that It is 
not the province of the Augsburg 
(Germany) Chamber of Commerce to 
comment on the high standard of liv- 
ing in America as compared with Ger- 
many as an offset to the difference In 
wages between workmen in the woolen 
industry in Germany and workmen in 
the woolen industry of our own coun- 
try, 



286 



SMITH. HEYBURN. FLINT. 



Mr. President, I Avas not guessing 
or surmising- or speculating about it. 
I liappened at that moment to have in 
my hand, through the courtesy of the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, 
the argument of the Augsburg Cham- 
ber of Commerce upon our Tariff pol- 
icy, and that statement in its manner 
and form is a voluntary impertinence 
upon the part of our commercial 
rivals. 

It is said that our legislation, If we 
are faithful to the declarations of our 
party platform, must be based upon 
the difference between the cost of la- 
bor here and in Europe. That, per- 
haps, may be a fair measure, although 
difficult to ascertain, but, Mr. Presi- 
dent, we are not called upon to equal- 
ize the standard of living between the 
woolen workers of Germany and our 
own. The woolen workers of our 
country may live as they please, with 
carpets on their floors and chairs and 
tables In their houses. This is the 
American standard of living, and the 
higher the standard the more cred- 
itable it is to us. 

Denies the Right of Foreign Interference. 

I deny the right of any foreign 
board of commerce to comment upon 
the high standard of American living 
as an argument in favor of lower du- 
ties against our competitors in Eu- 
rope. 

Mr. HEYBURN. I should like to 
know that I understood the Senator 
correctly as criticising the right of a 
private organization that wanted to 
make such comment as it may choose 
to make upon anything connected with 
the American Government. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I criti- 
cise the right of any foreign board of 
commerce, representing our rivals, to 
suggest the measure of difference that 
should be prescribed in our Tariff law 
as between the products of their coun- 
try and our own. 

I will quote to the Senator the ex- 
act language of the Chamber of Com- 
merce of Augsburg again: 

While the average wage of a weaver of 
ordinary efficiency runs from $3.75 to $4.50 
per week, this sum is often exceeded. The 
probable difference in favor of the Amer- 
ican workman is in the proportion of 2 or 
2y.i to 1. 

Now, I make no complaint about 
that, That )s the wage ,scale; 



This, however, is practicallv equalized 
by the fact that the standard of living is 
nearly twice as high in America as In 
Germany. 

Our standard of living is what we 
make it. I am proud of the fact that 
it is high; but it has nothing to do 
with the cost of production; It Is a 
tribute to the frugality of our people 
and the wisdom of our laws. 



The Lemon Industry of California in 
Need of Additional Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of June 5, 
1909. 

FRANK P. FLINT, of California. 
The purpose of this amendment. In- 
creasing the duty on lemons from 1 
cent to a cent and a half per pound, Is 
to place lemons on an equality with 
oranges and other citrus fruits. The 
cost of producing lemons is consid- 
erably in excess of the cost of pro- 
ducing oranges, by reason of the fact 
that it requires more w^ork in caring 
for the trees, in picking the fruit, and 
in preparing it for the market. 

The lemon industry w^as established 
in California about twentj' years ago. 
A few pioneers commenced planting 
trees in large numbers about that time, 
and in the course of ten years, or 
about the year 1898, there had been 
planted something like 6,500 acres. En- 
couraged by the Dingley Tariff of 1 
cent per pound, the acreage was more 
than doubled during the succeeding 
four years, and in 1892 it amounted to 
about 15,000 acres; but by this time 
the growers had learned that on ac- 
count of labor conditions they could 
not compete with the foreign grower 
and they commenced to rebud their 
lemon trees to oranges, and the acre- 
age in lemons rapidly decreased for 
the next two years, and In 1904 there 
were only about 9,200 acres remaining. 

One Cent a Pound Duty Not Sufficient. 

Experience had proven that 1 cent 
per pound was not sufficient to Pro- 
tect the lemon Industry. Every ef- 
fort was made to place it upon a pay- 
ing basis, and notwithstanding the Im- 
proved methods which had been Intro- 
duced, the industry in California was 
in a grave danger of annihilation. At 
this time the transcontinental rail- 
roads, foreseeinjsf the disaster, came to 



II 



FLINT. 



287 



the rescue with a reduction In the 
freight rate from $1-25 to $1 per 100 
pounds to practically all points in the 
United States and Canada. This again 
encouraged the growers to plant lemon 
trees, and under these circumstances 
the acreage has been Increased until 
at the present time there are about 
16,700 acres of lemon trees, with an an- 
nual output of about 1,585,000 boxes. 

But now the lemon industry In Cali- 
fornia is again in a precarious condi- 
tion, owing to the competition of lem- 
ons from Italy, where they have the 
advantage of low-priced labor and 
cheap transportation. The result Is 
that our growers find themselves un- 
able to successfully compete with the 
foreign producers, and there are now 
about 2,000 carloads of lemons In 
storage in southern California for 
which no markets at living prices 
have been found, and the growers are 
again in very considerable numbers 
rebudding their lemon trees to or- 
anges. The industry is at a standstill, 
and unless relief is obtained in this 
bill, it will only be a few years until 
this country will be dependent upon 
foreign producers for practically its 
entire supply of lemons. The Califor- 
nia grower will not continue to de- 
vote his time, capital, and land — that 
can be made to produce a reasonable 
return in other industries — to the rais- 
ing of lemons if he is to receive no 
profit from the investment. 

The world's production of lemons is 
approximately 70,000 car loads per an- 
num. Of this amount Italy produces 
65,000 cars and California 5,000 cars. 

Importations Have Increased Faster Than 
Domestic Production. 

The United States consumes annually 
of lemons and by-products of lemons 
approximately 19,000 carloads, made 
up as follows: 

Cars. 

California product 5.000 

Foreign importations 7,000 

Total 12,000 

By-products of lemons — citrate of 

lime and lemon oil — all imported. 7,000 

Total 19,000 

While the California production has 
Increased during the last eight years, 
the increase has not kept pace with 
the increase of importations. Cali- 
fornia has never furnished so much as 



40 per cent of the total amount of 
lemons consumed in this country, and 
during the past eight years has made 
no material advance in the per cent of 
production to the total consumption. 

The receipts of foreign lemons in 
1908 were 2,231,125 boxes, which was 
the heaviest importation in the history 
of the business, and was an increase 
of over 400,000 boxes in excess of the 
importation of 1901. From November 
1, 1907, to April, 1908, 350,700 boxes of 
lemons were imported, while from No- 
vember 1, 1908, to April 1, 1909, the 
importations amounted to 426,729 
boxes, or a gain of 76,029 boxes dur- 
ing the first five months of the present 
year, which accounts for the storage 
of over 2,000 cars in California. This 
directly disproves the statement of the 
counsel for the importers when he 
said to the Ways and Means Commit- 
tee that the earthquake at Messina had 
injured the lemons and would greatly 
decrease importations. 

Importers Could Then Fix the Price. 

Mr. President, a cent a pound is not 
a sufficient duty on lemons; and if the 
duty is not increased, the lemon grow- 
ers of California will have to go out 
of business or, at least, they will not 
be able to market their fruit any far- 
ther east than the Missouri River; and 
the result of the California growers 
not being able to go farther east than 
this, and leaving the foreign Importers 
in possession of the New York market, 
will be to fix the price on lemons in 
Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana, and other 
Western States at the New York price, 
which will be from one to four dollars 
a box more than it is at present. The 
people of this country need have no 
fear of the increase in this Tariff, 
amounting to about 36 cents a box, but 
what they must fear is an advance in 
the price of lemons of one to four and 
possibly as much as five to six dollars 
a box. 

There is no reason why California, 
on account of her soil and her climatic 
conditions, can not produce all the 
lemons that we use in this country, 
and more. The only reason that wo 
do not produce more lemons is that 
when we reach the New York market 
the competition there is so keen at 
times that we can not compete with 
the Mediterranean lemon. 



288 



PERKINS. FLINT. 



Ten Thousand Growers Interested. 

Mr. PERKINS. If my colleague will 
permit me. I will state that, as a mem- 
ber of the California State Board of 
Trade, we ascertained that at present 
we have 9,000 to 10,000 individual or- 
ange and citrus fruit growers. There 
are about 100,000 acres under cultiva- 
tion, and we have lands in California 
extending from Red Bluff, in Tehama 
County, to the Imperial Valley, in San 
Diego Countj^ and the foothills of the 
Sierra Nevadas, well adapted to the 
culture of citrus fruits of all kinds. 
This same argument was used twelve 
years ago, when we put the duty on 
oranges. The result of that duty is 
that to-day we are supplying oranges 
cheaper than they have ever been sold 
before in the country, and of a much 
better quality. So it will be with lera- 
ons, if we can have this Protection. 
It not only provides Protection, but, I 
will say to my colleague, it is a reve- 
nue measure, which ought to be sup- 
ported by every Member of Congress. 
Under the present law this duty 
brought in last year $2,309,035, and 
under the proposed increase in the 
duty It will make an increase in the 
revenue of $769,000, in round figures. 

Protection Will Keep Down Prices. 

Mr. FLINT. If we eliminated the 
California fruit grower from the New 
York market, we would be in this po- 
sition: First, there would be a com- 
bination in the Mediterranean to main- 
tain prices all over the world, as they 
would have no opposition if the Cali- 
fornia grower was eliminated; and 
then there would be a combination of 
the importers in the city of New York, 
and the price of lemons throughout 
this country would be just what those 
importers desired to make it. 

The question that the Senate has to 
solve is whether lemons shall sell for 
two or three dollars a box or eight or 
nine dollars a box; and I ask the Sen- 
ators whether they believe that the 
price would be lower in this country 
with the California producer in com- 
petition with the foreign producer, or 
with the California producer elim- 
inated and the country left to a com- 
bination of the producers in Italy and 
a combination of the foreign importers 
in New York? 

There can be no such thing as a 



combination among the fruit growers 
of California. While about 60 per cent 
of the fruit is shipped by a corporative 
fruit organization, the remaining 40 
per cent comes in direct competition 
with this fruit grower's association 
and all of it comes into competition 
with the fruit importers; so that we 
have to-day as strong a competition on 
lemons as it is possible to have. Now, 
the question is. Is it necessary for the 
California fruit growers to have an in- 
crease in Tariff to enable them to con- 
tinue in the business, or is the present 
duty sufficient? I ask to print a state- 
ment showing the cost of California 
fruit delivered in the Eastern market 
to be $2.32 a box. 

The points I desire to call to the 
particular attention of the Senate are: 
Should we allow this industry to be 
destroyed by foreign importations, 
and, if the industry is destroyed, will 
it not result in an increase In the 
price of lemons in this country? 

We have imported during the last 
ten years 1,679,669,265 pounds of lem- 
ons, with an approximate net profit to 
a small group of importers of $16,- 
796,692, which sum would buy the 
16,000 acres of lemon groves in Cali- 
fornia which 5,000 men have worked 
twenty years to produce. 

What Is Needed to Save the Industry. 

There are comparatively very few 
articles in this Tariff list produced by 
the farmer, the very existence of which 
depends upon Protection. In fact, the 
farmer perhaps receives less benefit 
from a Protective Tariff than any 
other class of our citizens. The manu- 
facturing industries of the country 
have a very large number of articles 
in this bill which will be adequately 
Protected against foreign competition, 
and in the past great industries have 
been built up solely because of the en- 
couragement given them by the Pro- 
tective policy. But there is not an ar- 
ticle in the entire Tariff list where the 
benefits of a Protective Tariff are as 
well illtistrated as in the case of the 
citrus-fruit industry in the United 
States, The only trouble is, we have 
not gone far enough. We have reme- 
died the unsatisfactory condition that 
has heretofore existed with respect to 
the orange industry, but the conditions 
affecting oranges and lemons, as has 



FLINT. ALnRTCri. 



280 



been pointed out. are different, and we 
must give further Protection to the 
lemon growers if we are to save this 
industry from destruction and put It 
on a profitable basis, as we have done 
with the orange industry. 



The Cotton Schedule the Subject of a 
Torrent of Misinformation and 
Misrepresentation. 

From the Congressional Record of June J, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. Mr. President it is my pur- 
pose this evening to state as clearly 
and as briefij' as I may the character 
and the scope of the amendments 
which the Committee on Finance have 
recommended to the cotton-cloth sched- 
dule, and to correct any misapprehen- 
sion which may have been created by 
a torrent of misinformation and mis- 
representation. 

The amendments which have been 
suggested apply to but a very small 
portion of the cotton schedule. One 
listening to this debate would have 
supposed that these amendments apply 
to almost the entire schedule, and that 
three-quarters of the rates which are 
fixed in the Dingley law have been In- 
creased by the suggested changes. As 
a matter of fact, these amendments 
applj' to not more than 10 per cent of 
the cotton schedule. Ninety per cent 
of the rates which were fixed by the 
Dingley law and by the House are ab- 
solutely unaffected by the bill as re- 
ported from the Finance Committee; 
the exceptions are the rates on certain 
classes of cotton yarns, which are re- 
duced below the existing law, and cer- 
tain amendments which have been sub- 
mitted from the committee to reduce 
the rates below those fixed by the 
House. Some of the latter are quite 
important in their character. 

Ninety Per Cent Are the Rates of the 
Dingley Law. 

Mr. President, when I say that 90 
per cent of the rates fixed in the bill 
as it is now before the Senate are the 
rates of the Dingley law I can also 
say that they are largely the rates 
fixed in the Wilson-Gorman law. With 
the exception of a few changes in the 
finer classes of manufactures and 



upon laces, the rates of the Dingley 
act are identical with the act of 1894, 
which passed the Senate by the unani- 
mous vote of every Democratic Sen- 
ator. 

The suggested changes apply to a 
very small proportion of the cotton 
cloths and cotton manufactures cov- 
ered by the cotton schedule and the 
cloths that are covered bj'' the specific 
rates now imposed include almost all 
the cloths that the mass of the people 
of the United States are interested in 
or which are in common use. The 
cloths that are valued above the max- 
imum specific rates established are all 
of them in a sense articles of luxury 
entitled by the understood doctrines 
alike of Tariff reformers and Protec- 
tionists to high rates of duty for 
revenue purposes. 

If any Senator has an Idea that the 
changes which the committee sug- 
gests affect the cost or the Protection 
of the great mass of cotton cloths 
that are used and sold and imported 
Into the United States he is mistaken, 
because the amendments, as I have 
shown, only apply to a very small por- 
tion. 

Importers the Only Ones to Protest 
Against Changes. 

It may be profitable to inquire who 
the people are that are demanding 
that these changes from ad valorem 
rates to specifics shall not be made. 
Who are demanding that the doors of 
the Treasury shall be left open for 
these intrusions? In whose behalf are 
they acting? Have the plain people 
of the United States shown any Inter- 
est in this matter? Has any part of 
any community anywhere suggested to 
the Senate that these rates would be 
too high? Have the representatives of 
organized or unorganized labor been 
heard in this Chamber in protest 
against the change suggested in these 
paragraphs? Have the great consum- 
ing people, who buy cotton cloths, ap- 
peared here with reference to this mat- 
ter? There never was a time in the 
history of this country when the cot- 
ton clothing of the people could be 
purchased at so low a price as it can 
be to-day, notwithstanding the In- 
crease in the price of cotton. No one 
has appeared here to protest against 
any change in the rates except the Im- 
porters. 



290 



ALDRICH. 



My mail has been deluged with sug- 
gestions of all kinds, some valuable 
and some otherwise. I think I will 
read from one of them, for the in- 
formation of the Senate, one received 
from the gentlemen who are here ask- 
ing us to forbear from taking away 
from them the advantages which they 
have received under decisions such as 
that to which I have alluded, by which 
their profits have been duplicated. I 
should like to call the attention of the 
Senate to this statement of a publicity 
committee that had its headquarters in 
this city and to allude to the instruc- 
tions issued with reference to these 
paragraphs. It is dated May 20, 1909. 
I will only read a portion: 

Pressure Brought by Importers and Mer- 
I chants. 

The fate of the cotton goods schedule 
of the Aldrich Tariff bill hangs in the 
balance. 

To defeat this bill it is imperatively 
necessary that the Senate and the House 
immediately be made aware that the 
American merchant and the American 
public do not want and will not stand 
for any increase on cotton goods. 

Please do your part by immediately 
writing to your Senators and your Rep- 
resentative protesting against any raise 
on cotton goods. 

Interest your customers; start petitions 
in your store. It will benefit you to show 
your customers that you are interested 
in their welfare. You could not have a 
better advertisement. For example, see 
the appreciation of the women of Chicago 
when Marshall Field & Co. made an open 
fight against a raise on hosiery and 
gloves. 

Congress heeded this protest, and it 
would heed it on cotton goods. But If 
they think American merchants are in- 
different the mill influence may pass this 
bill. 

Please do your duty by writing to 
Washington at once. 

Mr. Piiesident, these are the people 
who are demanding that these rates 
shall not be increased and that there 
shall be a continuance of this bounty, 
which either the indifference of Con- 
gress or the decisions of the court or 
other tribunals have placed gratuitous- 
ly in the pockets of these gentlemen. 
Has any man in the Senate heard 
from, any consumer upon this subject? 
Has any person engaged in any use- 
ful occupation in the United States; 
has any man who is earning his living 
by the sweat of his brow, in the length 
and breadth of this country, suggested 
to any of you that this change from 
ad valorems to specifics should not be 



made? I think not. No, Senators, this 
is simply a part of an organized effort 
to place more money in the pockets of 
these gentlemen and to break down 
the barriers which have been erected 
to Protect the American markets for 
the benefit of the wage-earners and 
producers of the country. 

American Cotton Manufacturers Entitled 
to Fair Play. 
Manufactures of cotton are taking 
the place of silk and of wool all over 
the world. Is it the desire of the 
Senate that in these articles, these 
finer manufactures of cotton which are 
pure luxuries, the American market 
shall be preserved for the gentlemen 
whose circulars I have read from, or 
that the markets of the United States 
shall be given to the cotton manufac- 
turers of this country? I expect be- 
fore I get through to allude to where 
those manufacturers are located. But 
wherever they are located and who- 
ever they are, they are entitled to the 
Protection which other American man- 
ufacturers have. They are entitled to 
fair play in the American market. So 
far as I am concerned, I propose that 
they shall have it; and I do not pro- 
pose to be persuaded by statements 
like that which I have read from do- 
ing what I believe to be my duty to 
the people who are engaged In this 
manufacture. 

The South' s Vital Need of Protection. 

Mr. President, it is not for me to say 
what the position of the Southern 
Senators shall be upon this question, 
which so vitally interests their con- 
stituents, but I say to those Senators 
that the stake of the South in this 
question is vastly greater than that of 
the North. To-day they have prac- 
tically one-half of the cotton manu- 
facturing of the United States. When 
the next Tariff bill is constructed (and 
I am willing to stake my reputation 
as an intelligent man and as a prophet 
upon that statement) they will have 
more than three-quarters of the entire 
cotton manufacturing of this country. 
It is inevitable. What industry Is 
there in the South that can take the 
place of the manufacture of cotton? 
You have been an agricultural people, 
a great agricultural people, the great- 
est in the world, considering the value 



ALDRICH. 



291 



of your product, but you have not de- 
veloped manufactures. 

It is true that in northern Alabama 
and in eastern Tennessee and north- 
western Georgia you have developed 
the iron industry, not very much in 
comparison with the North, but still 
an important development. "What 
other Industry, I ask you, gentlemen, 
is there that can so use the surplus 
population Of the South as the manu- 
facture of cotton? 

You have in Louisiana and Texas 
sugar and rice and cattle; you have 
agricultural products; but where in all 
the list of the manufactured products 
is there one that so appeals to south- 
ern interests and to southern people as 
this? You have abundant water 
power, intelligent labor, and a grate- 
ful climate. I have already shown 
that it is the most Important Industry 
in South Carolina outside of the rais- 
ing of cotton, outside of the agricul- 
tural products. It is the most im- 
portant industry possibly, except lum- 
ber — I am not sure about that — in 
North Carolina outside of the raising 
of cotton. It is the most important 
purely manufacturing industry in all 
those States. 

An Appeal to Southern Democrats. 

Now, what is it we propose? We 
propose to pass a Protective Tariff 
bill, probably not by your votes; and 
we are tendering you fair treatment in 
this great industry. We are saying to 
you that we propose to protect it from 
assaults within or without against 
every comer. I appeal to j'^oti gentle- 
men to join us in the adoption of these 
safeguards against injury to your own 
great industry. You have sometimes 
thought that the Republican party or 
its representatives here or elsewhere 
were not friendly to the South. I 
hope that all of you will agree that I 
have never, by act or word, shown 
that I was not as much Interested in 
the development of Southern industries 
and in Southern prosperity as I am in 
the prosperity of the section from 
which I come. 

I make this appeal to you directly, 
not that you shall vote for this bill; I 
do not expect that; but I ask you to 
encourage your own people by your 
votes upon this schedule. The time 
will come, not while I am In the Sen- 
ate, as the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 



Bacon] suggested the other day, but 
the time will come when the South 
in Tariff legislation will stand shoul- 
der to shoulder with every other sec- 
tion of the United States in the de- 
fense and development of the indus- 
tries of this great country. 

Gentlemen, these are not idle words 
on my part. I know from my knowl- 
edge of the business that the time Is 
almost here when this industry will 
be not only the most important in- 
dustry of your section, but that it will 
be vastly more Important to you than 
it will be to us who have been en- 
gaged in it for a century or more. 

Would Be a Serious Blow to the Work- 
ingmen. 

I am here to-day representing a 
State which has a considerable amount 
of cotton manufacturing in its midst. 
Many of the best men in our State are 
engaged in conducting these enter- 
prises. The capital involved might be 
wiped out in an instant without Im- 
poverishing the State, but any injury 
to the Industry would be a serious 
blow to the workingmen in our com- 
munity who are engaged in the occu- 
pation, and this blow I intend to use 
every effort at my command to pre- 
vent. I am not here pleading for the 
manufacturers of New England. I am 
pleading for the perpetuation and the 
preservation of an industry which 
should have a part in this great in- 
dustrial development of the United 
States. I^ is an industry which we are 
impelled to Protect and to defend by 
the interests of the whole people. I 
am also impelled to Protect it and de- 
fend it because I believe that a section 
which has heretofore prospered only In 
certain lines can diversify her inter- 
ests successfully by the imposition of 
Protective duties upon the products of 
this great industry. 

The South had in the earlier, I will 
not say in the better, days of the Re- 
public great Protectionists in many of 
her States. You had great men, both 
Whigs and Democrats. You had Henry 
Clay and a galaxy of brilliant men who 
believed fully in the great policy to 
which we are committed. 

If you can not join us In passing a 
bill which will Protect all the people of 
the United States, I ask you, in the 
interest of your own people and of 



292 



ALDRICH. DOLLIVER. 



your own industries, to join us in Pro- 
tecting these against assaults of the 
character which I have described to- 
night. 



An Appeal in Behalf of the Mer- 
chants of New York. 

From the Congressional Record of June J, 
1909. 
JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER, of Iowa. 
Mr. President, I have heard from my 
constituents, not alone the good peo- 
ple of Iowa, for whom I try to speak 
here, but from the people of every 
State in the Union, and of every city 
of importance, from all trades, condi- 
tions, occupations, and business enter- 
prises of the community, letters that I 
would print except for the fact that 
many of them contain matter that 
might not be becoming to a man of 
my general timidity of character. 
What is the substance of the protest 
which I have in my hand, and the 
names attached to which I have read? 
It is very short: 

"We, the undersigned wholesale mer- 
chants of this city, strongly voice our 
protest against any increase in the Tariff 
on cotton goods. 

As we understand the matter there 
was no expectation on the part of the 
consumer or the electorate that a revis- 
ion of the Tariff by the party of Pro- 
tection would entail the radical increase 
which must take place if the Senate bill 
as reported becomes law. 

Now, what were these merchants of 
New York talking about? They were 
talking about the amendments to this 
bill. I am now going to say a word 
in defense of the merchants of the 
United States. I have known a great 
many of them, and, so far as my 
knowledge goes, they constitute a most 
useful, enterprising, and worthy part 
of the population in each community 
in the United States. I confess that 
it made me not only mad, but sore 
at heart to find leaders of the Repub- 
lican party reproaching the whole mer- 
cantile community with all the excess- 
es and extravagances that have grown 
up In our market place. 

The Importer a Valuable Witness. 
There is one thing about an import- 
er that makes him a very valuable 



witness in a case like this. He is the 
gentleman who goes down into his 
pocket and pays these duties, and, as 
the Senator from Rhode Island says, 
he is always a rather smart man and 
is usually so prosperous that he sur- 
rounds himself with very shrewd men; 
and therefore it looks to me as if one 
of these people who Is likely to be 
called upon to pay these duties would 
be a fairly good witness as to the 
question whether the duties are going 
to be more or less than they are now. 
Does not that sound reasonable? Very 
well. 

I want to say another thing; I have 
now the mercantile community, all ex- 
perts in this business, claiming that 
these rates have been raised. 

I have the manufacturers, experts In 
promoting this legislation, admitting 
they have been raised. I have the 
Senator from Utah, unconsciously al- 
lowing the cat to escape from the bag 
by reading to the Senate language to 
which he has not accustomed his sight, 
and the Senator from Massachusetts 
prematurely confiding to his constitu- 
ents early notice of the "enormous 
value" of what had happened to them 
in the bill reported from the Finance 
Committee. 

All Say the Duties Have Been Raised. 

So, we have here five witnesses — • 
the merchant, who studies these ques- 
tions; the man who knows more about 
it than all of us. He says the duties 
have been raised; the promoting man- 
ufacturers; they say the duties have 
been raised; the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Smoot], who unconsciously ad- 
mits that they have been equalized — 
the low rates up to the level of the 
high ones; the Senator from Massachu- 
setts [Mr. Lodge]; the statistics of 
the Government of the United States, 
verified for the Senator from Wiscon- 
sin by the Department of Commerce 
and Labor; and the goods themselves 
Introduced into this country through 
the customs-house, with our own offi- 
cials applying the act of 1897 to them, 
and the act of 1909, as the Senator 
proposes to make it; and they make 
their memorandum on the actual mer- 
chandise. 

A Reason for Leaving the Tariff Alone. 

Mr. President, every department of 
the cotton industry has flourish§<S un- 



DOLLIVER. 



293 



interruptedly since 1897; and I rejoice 
in it. Every workingman has re- 
tained his employment; every work- 
ing woman and every working- girl 
has retained her wages, which have 
steadily advanced. They sailed through 
the panic with hardly a ripple in that 
great industry. To-day, or within the 
last few months, as was shown by the 
Boston Advertiser the other day, they 
are enlarging their works in all the 
cities of New England, counting on the 
Dinglej"- Tariff law being maintained. 
No voice was raised in any quarter 
of the cotton trade asking that these 
things be done. The very men who 
came here representing the industry 
not onlj-- declared that they wanted 
no changes In the law made, but they 
made no reference to these decisions 
of the courts except to say that those 
decisions had settled the law and made 
it plain, and they gave that as a rea- 
son for leaving it alone, which the 
committee has used as a reason for 
changing it. 

Trying To Preserve the Tariff Laws. 

Now, Mr. President, a few general 
remarks and I will not further disturb 
the convenience of the Senate. I read 
a good deal in the newspapers -and 
every now and then I hear of some- 
body who thinks that I am trying to 
tear down the Tariff laws of the Uni- 
ted States. I do not intend to spend a 
great deal of time explaining what I 
am trying to do; but I do not mind 
stating it once for all. I am trying 
to preserve the Tariff laws of the 
United States. I am trying to put 
them in such a position that the Amer- 
ican public opinion will be friendly 
to them. North and South. It has 
grieved me more than anything in 
my public life that I have felt it my 
duty to protest against this unwar- 
ranted repeal of the Dingley cotton 
schedules. There is no industry in 
America that I have studied with the 
interest that I have the cotton busi- 
ness. It is the most ancient occupa- 
tion of man after he reached the stage 
of industrial skill. In the museums 
of the world, coeval with the most an- 
cient civilization, are fabrics of cotton 
woven oftentimes by the rude ma- 
chinery of other ages. There is no 
such crown upon the industrial life 
of America as the building up of the 
cotton and other textile industries here. 



A Wound Inflicted Upon the Protective 
Tariff System. 

I have tried in an humble way to 
trj'^ to help build them up. The peo- 
ple wliom I represent are without prej- 
udice against them. They are full of 
sympathy for them. They do not even 
complain that they have been prosper- 
ous, that men have grown rich who 
have put their capital and Invested 
their labor in these enterprises. For 
a hundred years the cotton schedules 
in American Tariffs have been without 
an enemy in either party of the United 
States. No such wound has ever been 
inflicted upon the Protective-Tariff 
system, as to drag this schedule with- 
out an enemy in the world into the 
midst of this controversy and fill the 
Congressional Record with misleading 
statistics and irrelevant suggestions in 
respect to what has been done by the 
Senate committee. If it be true, as 
the Senator from Rhode Island says, 
that nothing has been done, if things 
are left as they are, if the rates are 
not Paised, if no intention has been in 
their minds to disturb them, I appeal 
to Senators on both sides of the House 
to let them stand exactly where old 
Governor Dingley left them; to let 
them stand exactly as the courts of 
the United States have interpreted 
them. I ask my associates not to do 
what is the wish of the committee or 
the importers or the manufacturers, 
but to do w^hat is suggested by every 
motive of reason and good sense. 
When you are not doing anything that 
amounts to anything, when you are 
not raising rates, when you are not 
disturbing them, when you spend a 
week showing that the changes sug- 
gested are of no importance to the 
public or anybody else, in the name of 
all that is reasonable let us let them 
alone; let me go to the people where 
I live and tell them that we left the 
Dingley Tariff law undisturbed. 

Do not send Members of Congress 
out to say that no changes have been 
made, when every schoolboy in every 
district will know that 

A Statement Like That Can Not Be True, 

and that that man is incompetent for 
the discharge of the business which 
he seeks to do for the people of the 
United States. If no changes have 
been made, let us put away hjs appear* 



294 



DOLLIVER. BEVERIDGE. ALDRICH. 



ance of change and leave these rates 
absolutely as they are. All these in- 
dustries have flourished under them, 
g-reat cities have been builded, great 
communities have been enriched. I 
do not envy them, from my little farm 
out in Iowa, any of their prosperity. 
I want to see all sections of the coun- 
try share It, South as well as North, 
East as well as West. I want them all 
to participate in it. But I say to you 
gentlemen, you can not do a thing so 
harmful to the Protective system, so 
injurious to this industry, as to make 
it the storm center of an agitation 
which will not cease when you have 
Incorporated these amendments in the 
bill, notwithstanding the showing ' of 
facts that has been made on the floor 
of the Senate. 



Solicitude for the Consumer Caused 
the Demand for Tariff Revision 
Downward. 

From the Congressional Record of June 7, 
1909. 
ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE, of Indiana. 
The Senator said I certainly had not 
listened to his words the other night. 
I listened with the keenest attention 
to his passionate appeal — and it was 
a passionate appeal, and one which was 
eloquent — but I also observed that in 
that appeal he said that these common 
cotton cloths were made in the South; 
that they were exported to the Orient, 
and that it made a market for them 
now, but that the Orient was itself 
going to come Into competition with 
them some time or other. Therefore 
he appealed to the South against the 
coming danger. I did not want to in- 
terrupt the Senator at that moment, or 
I would have asked him whether In 
this bill there is a single provision 
increasing the duties on these kinds of 
goods because, as you have said, of 
that coming invasion. I listened to 
the Senator's statement. But he was 
bound, as a matter of logic, to pro- 
pose an increase of duties to preserve 
the South from that peril, yet he 
makes no Increase in such goods. 

Danger of Oriental Competition. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator could 

not have listened to me. but if he did, 

he heard me say that in my judgment 

^— and I desire to reiterate the state- 



ment — the competition which this 
country will receive from Japan and 
from Japanese manufacturers will be 
along the lines of these very articles. 
Such are the artistic tastes of the 
Japanese in all matters pertaining to 
decoration and articles of decoration 
in the use of colors that they have ex- 
ceeded all the nations of the Orient. 
They are now competing in crockery 
in China, apd in various other articles 
along the same line of these finely 
decorated colored cotton cloths. I said, 
or meant to say, and I think If the 
Senator will read my remarks he will 
find I did say that competition from 
the Orient will be exactly along the 
line of the amendment which the com- 
mittee suggested to this House pro- 
vision with regard to mercerization. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President, it 
is thus sought to impress us that the 
increases, if at all, will be so negli- 
gible to the consumer that it is not 
worth while taking them into consid- 
eration in connection with the vast 
benefit to business that is to accrue. 
That is true, is it not? 

Anxiety for tfie Consumer. 

But, Mr. President, that is not only 
where the injustice comes in — which 
is the chief thing — but there is where 
the economic error comes in which is 
possibly even a more important thing, 
practically speaking. If 3 cents on a 
shirt, if 10 cents on a dress, if 5 cents 
on a pair of shoes in a family of 7 
children, and of 25 cents upon a bucket 
of paint; if all these little increases, 
which occur to us to-day as absurd, 
are added together, what does that 
mean to the consumer; not a consum- 
er, mind you, who is able to pay, but 
a consumer whose average wage is 
what is demonstrated to be the aver- 
age earnings of a common laboring 
man in the United States, less, I be- 
lieve, than $600 — between five and six 
hundred dollars? To that man, with 
a family of 4 or 5 children and a wife, 
a few cents on shoes, an amount that 
would make us here to-day sneer, 
when he has got to supply those chil- 
dren with shoes to go to school, and 
10 cents on a dress, which we think 
negligible, and 3 cents on a shirt, and 
2.5 cents on a bucket of paint, thus 
running down the whole list of life's 
necessities, makes to him, with his 



I 



GALT.INCKR. BEVKRTDGll ALDlilCH. 



29; 



email earning power, a bvirden g-riev- 
ous to be borne. 

Mr. GALLINGER. This bill reduces 
the duty on shoes. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I hope that good 
example will be followed elsewhere. 
If you are going to make a man's 
footwear lighter, why not make the 
burdens that are on his back lighter 
also? 

What Raised the Storm for Tariff Revi- 
sion. 

Mr. President, the remark of the 
Senator from North Dakota in showing 
that, after all, even if there was an 
Increased duty, it would not affect the 
consumer very much, made me feel 
that it was necessary to point out and 
to bring home to each one of us or 
to make us conscious of it at least — 
for I am sure it was brought home to 
us the moment that it w^as made — that 
it is no argument to say that the In- 
crease is small, that it appears to us 
to be negligible in affecting the price 
to the consumer, because the sum total 
of it, when measured, not by our earn- 
ing power, but by the earning power 
of the men who buy the shoes and 
shirts and dresses and food and paints 
and everything else, becomes finally a 
burden, the bearing of which raised 
the very storm for Tariff revision, 
which wrote it into our platform, and 
finally voiced itself through the utter- 
ances of the man best equipped and 
authorized to interpret it. 

The Influence and the Dangers of Asso- 
ciation. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, the 
influence and the dangers of associa- 
tion are well illustrated in the speech 
which has just been concluded. I have 
heard remarks of that kind before, 
rarely from Republicans, never from 
Protectionists. The Senator has been 
voting with reference to these inatters 
with men who believe that Protective 
duties are added to the cost of all 
domestic articles produced In the Uni- 
ted States. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Did those same 
men believe that when they voted with 
the Senator for Protective duties on 
certain articles? 

Mr. ALDRICH. No; I think that on 
those particular occasions they were 
acting as Protectionists. 



Mr. BEVERIDGE. Then, are they 
voting with me or am I voting with 
them? 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator must 
be voting with them. The other side 
furnishes all the privates, and this 
side furnishes the brigadiers in this 
movement, as near as I can under- 
stand. 

Mr. BAILEY. They think they are 
the brigadiers. 

Worthy of a Free-Trader Or a Tariff Re- 
former. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes; they are under 
the impression that they are the brig- 
adiers. 

The Senator's speech could have been 
made with great effect by any Free- 
Trader or Tariff reformei- in the United 
States. He could express his views in 
the precise language that the Senatpr 
has expressed his; that all of these 
duties are added to the cost of the 
consumer in this country; and he is 
only finding fault with us apparently 
because we have increased the cost to 
the consumer a small amount. The 
application of the doctrine, to his 
mind, seems as clear as it does to 
Senators who sit upon the other side 
of the Chamber, and who have no 
hesitanc3'' in expressing their views as 
Tariff reformers that the whole Pro- 
tective system ought to be pulled down 
and destroyed. 

The Senator makes another state- 
ment which on its face appears to be 
fair enough. He says that in listening 
to the statements of importers and 
manufacturers we should consider 
that they are both Interested parties 
and that we should give equal cred- 
ence to both in considering the Tariff 
bill. But to my mind there is a dis- 
tinction as wide as the poles between 
the people who appear here to serve 
their own interest, which are against 
American interests, and the people who 
appear here and whose interests coin- 
cide with American interests. Speak- 
ing for myself, I do not intend to ap- 
ply any rigid rule of judicial construc- 
tion in the treatment of the state- 
ment of these two classes of men. "We 
are not bound as Senators in the con- 
struction of a Tariff act to say that 
the statement of an importer, as to 
the effect of our legislation upon Amer- 
ican interests, shall have the same 



206 



ALDRICB. BEVERIDGE. SUTHERLAND. BAILEY. 



•weight and the same control over our 
acts as that of a man who has no in- 
terest at all except one along the line 
of American development and Ameri- 
can prosperity. 

Both Importers and Manufacturers Are 
Honorable Men. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President, my 
few remarks with respect to the rule 
of credibility of testimony were 
brought out by the statement of that 
rule last made by the Senator from 
Rhode Island, as I have said, which is 
the first time he has stated the rule 
fairly or that it had been fairly stated; 
and I was so glad of it that I thought 
it necessary to point out the equal 
applications of that rule which ought 
to be applied to manufacturers as well 
as to importers. Both are honorable 
men. Both have fought for their coun- 
try. It does not affect a man's honor 
that he is importer or manufacturer. 
It does not affect the w^eight of his 
testimony — the interest he has in giv- 
ing it. Therefore when the rule is 
applied to importers, it should also 
apply to the manufacturers. 

Then there is the statement of the 
collateral rule — that where a man tes- 
tifies against his interest it has double 
weight, and I pointed out Mr. Lippitt. 
The answer — I did not expect any — 
that the Senator gave to that was that 
those remarks showed the effect of 
association. That is no answer. 

The only thing important about them 
is whether they are true or not. 

When Duties Cease to Be Protection and 
Become Extortion. 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. The Senator, as 
I understand, proposes, by a reduction 
of the duties, to save to the American 
consumer the various amounts which 
he has stated? 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Not at all; by 
preventing the increase of duties. That 
is the way this debate arose. 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. The Senator 
also proposes to reduce the duties, as 
I understood his speech the other day. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Wherever they 
are a cent beyond what is needed for 
safe Protection — and I will go with the 
Senator any distance for safe Protec- 
tion — they ought to be reduced. They 
tlien cease to be Protection and become 



extortion. Justice first and expedi- 
ency afterwards. 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. The Senator pro- 
poses to save the consumer 3 cents 
on a shirt and 5 cents on a pair of 
shoes and a few cents on some other 
articles. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. On all articles 
raised to a point of extortion. 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Does he think 
It would be a wise thing, if his con- 
clusion is correct, to reduce tlie duties 
in such a way as to save the labor 
$20 or $25 a year upon the price of 
these various commodities and lose 
him $50 on the scale of his wages? 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. By no manner of 
means, and no person stated with more 
earnestness than I, not only on this 
floor, but wherever I have had the 
honor to be permitted to speak upon 
this question, that duties ought not 
to be reduced at all, they ought to be 
Increased, they ought to be reduced, 
they ought to be kept as they are, so 
as to afford proper Protection, honest 
Protection, and no more. The point Is 
that under the guise of affording 

Such Protection as We All Believe In 

and no person more earnestly than the 
revisionists upon this side — there are 
instances, as it appears to some of us 
upon the evidence submitted, where it 
is more than Protection. I ask the 
Senator this question. He is a Pro- 
tectionist, as I am; both equally good. 
"Would he be in favor of a duty that 
gave more than necessary Protection? 
I remember his illustration from the 
trout brook and rubber boots the other 
day. 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. The Senator 
says he is as good a Protectionist as 
I am. I beg leave to differ with him 
about that. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Then. I will say, 
I am a more reasonable Protectionist 
than the Senator. 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I think I am 
rather a better Protectionist than the 
Senator has come to be in his latter 
days. 

Mr. BAILEY. One has to be "good" 
before the other can be "better." 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I am very much 
afraid the Senator is ceasing to be a 
good Protectionist. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. We will discuss 
that at some length if it comes up In 
this debate. 



SUTHERLAND. BEVEUIDGE. GALL1>:(;EK. FLINT. ALDKICH. 297 



Give the American Producer tfie Benefit of 
tfio Doubt. 
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I will say, how- 
ever, in answer to the Senator from 
Indiana, that I do not believe in inr 
creasing duties beyond the measure of 
Protection. But, as I said the other 
day, I do believe, when I am In doubt 
about it, in giving- the American pro- 
ducer the benefit of the doubt; and if 

1 am to err upon either side, I would 
rather have the duties a little too 
high than a little too low. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I go that far with 
the Senator. I thought the illustration 
about the trout stream a good one, 
but because he thought the boots 
should be an inch higher and the water 
came up to his knees, would he insist 
upon an entire rubber suit? 

Mr. GALLINGER. Yes. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. If we make the 
rates not only amply sufficient to cover 
the difference in the cost of production 
at home and aboard, but to afford a 
profit to the manufacturer — to allow 
for those three elements — does the 
Senator also agree with me, as I 
agreed with him on the other proposi- 
tion, that the excess beyond the Pro- 
tective point may be added to the 
price? 

Mr. GALLINGER. I am not so clear 
about that part, but I agree with the 
Senator that we ought not, as a rule, 
to make the rate so high as he has 
pictured. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Very well. That 
is the whole question here. When 
Senators, whom the Senator will be 
the first to admit are earnest and sin- 
cere in their opinion, think upon the 
evidence that the rate is higher than 
that which the Senator himself says 
he would go, then they are not to be 
called "Free-Traders," because they 
think that an eighth of 1 per cent or 

2 or 3 per cent which has been added 
Is not Protection, but amounts, as we 
both agree it might amount, to extor- 
tion. If I wanted to be unkind I 
could make a dividing line 

Between Free-Traders and Extortionists, 

and when men talk about our being divid- 
ed into Protectionists and Free-Traders, I 
could say, "no, not between Protec- 
tionists and Protectionists and Free- 
Traders, but extortionists." But I am 



not unkind. I do not think that ever 
adds anything to the discussion. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I concede to the 
Senator, as I concede to every other 
Senator, whatever his political convic- 
tions may be or his views on the ques- 
tion of the Tariff may be, the right to 
hold to his views as strenuously as 
I do to mine. If the Senator believes 
these rates are higher than the pro- 
visions of the Republican platform 
warrant, certainly the Senator has the 
right to resist them. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. That is good. I 
thank you, sir. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I do not think 
they are, and so I vote for them. 

Coming to a Parting of tfie Ways. 

Mr. FLINT. I simply desired to call 
the attention of the Senator from In- 
diana to the fact that we seem to 
have reached the point where we are 
coming to a parting of the ways. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I hope not. 

Mr. FLINT. There appears to be a 
majority on this side in favor of the 
old doctrine of a Protective Tariff for 
American industries, and there seem 
to be others on this side who have 
abandoned that and have gone over 
with those who believe in a Tariff for 
revenue only, or at least not for a Pro- 
tective Tariff sufficient, as the com- 
mittee believes, to Protect the indus- 
tries of this country. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Oh, now, Mr. 
President, I am satisfied my friend will 
regret those remarks in a cooler mo- 
ment. I do not think the Senator or 
anybody else or any other power is 
going to compel us to come to a part- 
ing of the ways when we both believe 
sincerely in the principle of Protec- 
tion. But I say this — and I think the 
Senator from California in his heart 
agrees with me — that the real safety 
of the policy of Protection and its real 
defenders are those of us who will vote 
and work and fight to keep out of a 
single item what appears to us upon 
the face of the evidence to be 1 cent 
more than Protection, because it has 
been conceded here this morning by 
your associates that 1 cent more than 
Protection is just 1 cent of extortion. 

Is Protection to Be Saved by Joining 
witfi Its Enemies? 

Mr. ALDRICH. As I understand the 



298 



ALDRICH. BEVERIDGE. ELKINS. 



attitude of the Senator from Indiana, 
it is that the principle of Protection Is 
to be saved by some Members of the 
Senate joining with tlie well-known 
and understood opponents and enemies 
of that system to help pull it down. 
My ideas of saving a principle do not 
follow these lines. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President, the 
Senator has made that remark three 
times, and in it there is no argument, 
and it comes very nearly not being 
pleasant, because I have not referred, 
except once or twice in a jocular way, 
to the Members on the other side who 
saw fit to vote against their comrades 
on that side and for what the Senator 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Aldrich] 
thought was a Protective duty and 
what they thought was a revenue 
duty. Mr. President, that kind of ar- 
gument is too old, and if I did not 
have the affection that he knows I 
have for the Senator I would say that 
it is too cheap. 

Mr. ELKINS. Will the Senator al- 
low me? I want to ask the Senator 
a question, in view of the fact that 
the Rpublican platform adopted at the 
last national convention, which I re- 
gard as the strongest Protection plat- 
form ever written, declares not only 
for the difference between the cost of 
labor in this country and abroad, but 
it goes further and declares in addi- 
tion that there shall be a reasonable 
profit. There never was such a plat- 
form so pronounced in favor of Pro- 
tection adopted by any political party 
In this country, 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. The Senator from 
West Virginia does not need to take 
up my time, because we have gone all 
over that while the Senator was out 
at lunch. 

Mr. ELKINS. The Senator from In- 
diana did not allow me to finish my 
question, which I will do now. The 
platform declaring in definite and pos- 
itive terms that the duty shall not 
only cover the difference in the cost of 
labor here and abroad, but shall allow 
for a reasonable profit to the American 
producer, all this is in favor of Pro- 
tection and American industry. Now, 
if this should add slightly to the cost 
of the article to the consumer, is it 
not better for our people and the 
country generally, because in manufac- 
turing our own products we give em- 



ployment to ovir people, keep at home 
the money we would pay for the for- 
eign product, and build up home in- 
dustries. 

fi Matter of Great Congratulation. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from 
Indiana is a"\vare, I presume, as well as 
the Senator from Georgia, that those 
of us who have the responsibility of 
this legislation are voting together 
because we are loyal Republicans, be- 
cause we believe in the doctrine of 
Protection, and we believe in its appli- 
cation to every interest and to every 
section alike. I think it is a matter 
of great congratulation to the people 
of the United States that there are a 
majority of Republicans and Protec- 
tionists in this body who will control 
this legislation, 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I will ask the 
Senator if he thinks there is any one 
of the schedules over which we have 
fought hardest that had a chance of 
passing this body if it stood on its 
own feet and was not combined with 
the interest of other Senators and oth- 
er schedules? What does he think 
about it? 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator has 
talked about defeat 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Defeat? Not 
ours. I have talked about the British. 

Sha// the Republican IVIajority Be Defeated 
by Republican Votes? 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator has 
talked about the defeat of the will of 
the majority of the Senate sitting upon 
this side of the Senate. By whom 
shall that defeat be consummated? By 
Republican votes? No. How many are 
-there of the Republicans who are will- 
ing to destroy or to break down this 
system? By whose votes does the Sena- 
tor from Indiana expect to defeat the 
Republicans in this body if they are 
defeated? That is the proposition that 
he is discussing. If this initial en- 
gagement is to be followed by the final 
defeat of the Republican party, who is 
to defeat it? Where are the votes to 
come from? Who is to marshal these 
combined forces? What is to be the 
character of the new doctrine that 
these apostles are to preach to us? Is 
it to be the platform of the Democratic 
party, or is it to be the platform of a 
new party, with three presidential 
candidates in sight? 



ALDRICII. BEVERIDGE. DOLLIVER. 



299 



Ilow does the Senator expect to 
consummate thfS union, this unholy 
alliance, for the purpose of breaking 
down the principles and policies of the 
party which stands for American in- 
terests? I have respect for the Sena- 
tors who sit upon the other side of 
the Chamber. I have respect for some 
of the Senators sitting upon this side 
of the Chamber — and I have two of 
them in my view at this moment — 
who have been in the past, and who 
are now consistent Tariff reformers, 
who believe that the rates of duty are 
too high and have alwaj^s believed It 
and have always said it. But we are 
confronted now with a new evangel, 
with a new doctrine that threatens to 
destroy us all, destroy us by Demo- 
cratic votes, with an army who have 
no sympathy whatever with his move- 
ment or his leadership. 

Which Is the Setter Republican of the 
Two? 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Whose fault is 
that? The Senator from Rhode Island 
shakes his head — yet he has taken 
about as much time as anybody, and 
given practically all the provocation. 

Now, about our party. It is just as 
much the party of the Senator from 
Iowa and the Senator from Indiana as 
it is of the Senator from Rhode Island, 
although he seems not to recognize 
that fact. If the Senator wants it to 
go out to the countrj' as to which is 
the better Republican of the two, him- 
self or myself, if he wants to draw 
between the Senators upon this side 
invidious comparisons, he can do so, 
and I think we will all be willing to 
take the country's judgment upon that 
question. But I know, we all know, 
that the purpose the Senator has 
advanced is merely strategical and is 
to consolidate the ranks that he has 
thus far brought together. I wonder 
if he has misgivings that he can much 
longer hold them together. 

A New Doctrine? 

The Senator says that ours is a new 
doctrine. He is the only Senator upon 
this or any other side who has yet 
appeared to say that it is a new doc- 
trine. The Senator from New Hamp- 
shire [Mr. Gallinger], as he told the 
Senator, almost as earnest a Protec- 
tionist as he, was able to agree with 



me upon what doctrine it was, but 
what we contend against is a perver- 
sion of that doctrine. If, in the end, 
we have any success in getting these 
reductions, it will not be by the aid 
of our Democratic friends, who when 
divided much have never voted with 
us in large and in such numbers as 
they have with the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Aldrich] ; but more 
reductions will come by the efforts of 
Republicans on this floor and Repub- 
licans in the House and elsewhere in 
the usual process of legislation. That 
is what I hope to see, and it is a rea- 
sonable hope. 



Has Made No Combination with 
Anybody. 

From the Congressional Record of June 7, 
1909. 
JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER, of Iowa. 
Mr. President, a question has been 
raised here as to those of us who are 
not always able to agree with and sup- 
port what the Finance Committee pre- 
sents, and such a cj^allenge by the 
leader of the Republican side of this 
Chamber requires even that the hum- 
blest man here, who is not always able 
to agree with him, should not permit 
the pressure of time to excuse him 
from stating exactly what he repre- 
sents. 

I have made no combination in this 
Tariff controversy with anybody on 
either side of the Chamber. I have 
tried to get a just combination with 
the facts and figures which concern 
these Tariff schedules. I have sought 
by conscientious study to find out what 
these rates ought to be, and wherever 
I have found in the report of the Fi- 
nance Committee a rate which ap- 
peared to be higher than it ought to 
■ be, I have not hesitated to introduce 
an amendment to reduce it to a rea- 
sonable level. It has not hurt my feel- 
ings at all that our brethren on the 
other side of the Chamber have so 
often concurred in these amendments. 
My theory is that every man stands 
on this floor face to face with his duty 
as advised by his individual judgment 
and information upon the question. I 
shall seek no votes on either side of 
this Chamber except by public discus- 
sion here, which I have not altogether 
abstained from as to the details of this 



300 



DOLLlVEli. Bl^VERlDOE. SMITM. 



measure. I have not only refused to 
go about seeking votes, but it has long 
since ceased to be a part of my ex- 
pectation to receive enough votes to 
give effect to the opinions which I 
have felt called upon to express about 
some of the schedules of this bill. 

Trying io Represent Nearly 3,000,000 Peo- 
ple. 

Yet, Mr. President, it ought not to 
be said that I do not represent any- 
body. I am trying to represent nearly 
3,000,000 people, whose commission I 
bear here. I am trying, also, to inter- 
pret as best I can the purpose and the 
promise of the great party to which I 
have devoted the energy and strength 
of my whole political life, and I desire 
to call the attention of those who 
would narrow and belittle the work I 
am trying to do here to the fact that 
I am not without countenance in high 
circles among those who are now re- 
sponsible for the administration of the 
Government under the platform and 
the purpose of the old Republican par- 
ty, for on last Saturday night the 
Secretary of th« Treasury, speaking in 
his home city, used these words: 

What the people expect is what the 
Protectionist Republican party promised 
in its last year's platform, as interpreted 
by its candidate for the Presidency, and 
while it is talking against the wind to 
argue that the revision expected is not 
a revision down, it would be equally futile 
to say that the revision down was prom- 
ised to be a revision down and out. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I had heard from 
certain sources that the term "revision 
down and out" was to be applied to the 
revisionists. One little sentence will 
let the air out of the bubble and that 
is this: What we have contended for 
is against an increase of the duties 
fixed by the House, and not for a de- 
crease. 

Disagreed with Nearly Every Proposition 
for Increase. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I have found It 
very convenient and consistent with 
my own purpose and view to disagree 
with nearly every proposition to in- 
crease the House rates, although not 
In all cases. I have already said that 
I am myself governed by old-fash- 
ioned Republican doctrines; and wher- 
ever an industry appears to me to need 
a higher duty than the House gave It, 
or even a higher duty than the Ding- 



ley law gave it, I have not hesitated 
after careful consideration of the 
question, to stand by the ancient Re- 
publican faith. 

The doctrine which I represent here 
is that we ought to reduce these du- 
ties when it can be done without a 
violation of the principle of Protection 
as interpreted by the Republican party, 
and especially as interpreted by the 
leadership of the Republican party in 
the administration of which we are 
ourselves a part. 

He Entertained Exactly the Same Views in 
1904. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I simply 
want to observe at this point, if I 
have the privilege of the Senator from 
Iowa, that the statement attributed to 
the Secretary of the Treasury last Sat- 
urday night, and which he has just 
read, reveals that distinguished officer 
of our Government in a marvelously 
consistent light. He entertained ex- 
actly the same views in 1904. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I am prepared for 
the general disparagement of the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury as being want- 
ing in Republicanism 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I am not 
disparaging him. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Then for what pur- 
pose does my friend rise? 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Simply to 
show that he is consistent in his 
vieAvs, and some of us liope to be in 
ours. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. For nearly twenty 
years the Secretary of the Treasury 
has been consistent witli the views and 
the interests and the candidates of the 
Republican party, and he stands now 
in the closest confidential relation pos- 
sible with the President of the United 
States. Is he disqualified to say that 
the Republican platform, as interpre- 
ted by the President, led the public 
to expect a revision of the Tariff in 
a downward direction? 

Not Competent to Bind the Republican 
Party by His Declaration. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. No, Mr, 
President, I do not consider that he is 
competent to say it, or at least to bind 
the Republican party by his declara- 
tion. I have no words of criticism to 
offer upon the public life or the char- 
acter or the intelligence of the Secre- 



«M1TH. BKVEtnDOE. bOtUVEH. 



801 



tary of the Treasury, but I can not 
forget that while Benjamin Harrison 
was upholding- the banner of Protec- 
tion as our party understood it, the 
present Secretary of the Treasury, if 
my memory is not at fault, left his 
party and joined the party of Mr. 
Cleveland for a downward revision. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Surely the Sena- 
tor from Michigan does not object to 
these hundreds of thousands and mil- 
lions of recrviits to our party, which 
we have obtained from other parties, 
especially when they embrace such 
brilliant and eininent men as the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I do not 
object, but I decline to hand them the 
banner under which I have marched 
from young manhood. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. By the time the 
Senator frorii Michigan proves that the 
Secretary of the Treasury, by his polit- 
ical record and by his political views, 
Is not a fit associate in public respon- 
sibility for the President of the Uni- 
ted States, I will get ready to admit 
that those who sympathize with my 
views ^lere are not well calculated for 
harmonious co-operation with the Re- 
publican party as represented in this 
Cliamber. 



Would No Sooner Be Bound by the 
Advice of the Present Secretary of 
the Treasury Than by the Counsel 
of Any Other Democrat. 

From the Congressional Record of June 7, 
1909. 
WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Michi- 
gan. Mr. President, I do not intend to 
be put in the attitude of criticising 
either the character or the public 
service of Secretary MacVeagh. He is 
an accomplished, able, patriotic, hon- 
orable man, and the President of the 
United States has exercised his usual 
good judgment of men in this case, 
and lie is responsible only to the 
American people for his choice. I do 
not intend to criticise him for the se- 
lection of his official family, but I 
would no sooner be bound by the ad- 
vice of the present Secretary of the 
Treasury in my course upon this bill 
than I would be bound by the counsel 
of the Secretary of War, or any other 
Democrat, if he were to give it upon 



this bill, . able and honorable as he 
may be. 

Mr. President, I had not Intended to 
take any part in this discussion. I do 
not propose to do so now. The Sena- 
tor from Indiana gave his illustration 
of the faulty brick to be taken from 
the great structure of Protection, and 
says that should not be regarded as 
a species of political vandalism. 

I do not so regard it, but I call the 
attention of the Senator from Indiana 
to the fact that the last revision" of a 
Republican Protective Tariff consisted 
only in taking a few bricks out of the 
structure here and there. Unfortu- 
natelj', however, those 

Bricks Were Withdrawn by Vandal Hands 

from the Tariff wall, and when the 
tide came in the whole industrial sys- 
tem of our country was submerged in 
ruin and disaster and there floated 
upon the sea of Idleness millions of 
our countrymen, until the bricks were 
replaced and the wall perfected un- 
der the leadership of the great Mc- 
Kinley. 

Mr. President, not very many months 
ago it was my pleasure to pass 
through the little Kingdom of Holland, 
a kingdom not highly favored by na- 
ture, lower than the sea. The sturdy 
Dutchman pushed back the sea and 
planted a garden where the surly Nep- 
tune had so lately set his trident. If 
my information is correct, the sea has 
not gone over the dikes of Holland 
for many years, and yet if the Senator 
from Indiana and my honored friend, 
the Senator from Iowa, were to ap- 
proach the Queen of the Netherlands 
and suggest to her that, inasmuch as 
the tide had not gone over the dikes 
for so many years, perhaps they might 
engage themselves in boring a few 
holes through it just for the amuse- 
ment and the delectation of the peo- 
ple, what think you the young queen 
would say? 

Tlie Tariff Is Our Industrial Dil<e. 

She would say to the Senator from 
Indiana with all his plausibility and 
eloquence, "Sir, these dikes around 
Holland are the safety of our people. 
They sleep better behind them. They 
pursue their daily vocations with a 
greater sense of security because the 
dikes are there;" and I hardy think any 
eloquent man, no matter how; vigorous- 



302 



SMITH. 



ly he mig-ht plead with the Queen of 
the Netherlands, could get her to take 
down those traditional bulwarks, for 
fear that, at some time, in the dark- 
ness or the storm,, there should come 
a tide high enoug"h to sweep over the 
barriers built by the enterprising peo- 
ple of Holland. The Tariff is our in- 
dustrial dike, behind which the activi- 
ties of our people thrive and prosper, 
and we must not impair or destroy it. 
Now, sir, I reg-ard the commercial 
enterprise of our people as sacred in 
our hands. I would not have foreign- 
made goods used by the American 
people if we can produce our necessi- 
ties at home. I do not favor tempt- 
ing the American consumer to buy 
foreign-made goods, I am a firm be- 
liever in the use of the handiwork of 
our own genius. This custom has con- 
tributed more to the comfort of our 
people — their prosperity and happiness 
— than almost anything that legisla- 
tion could aid. I am a firm believer 
in this principle. 

When the Wilson-Gorman Law Was Re- 
pealed. 

When I came to Congress the first 
time the people in my State were al- 
most a unit in favor of the repeal of 
the Wilson-Gorman law. Our people 
were then unemployed; millions of 
them without wages and without food. 
The soup houses were the permanent 
boarding place for many of our labor- 
ers. They sent me here to help repeal 
that law, and I cast my vote for the 
passage of the Dingley law, and re- 
ceived the almost unanimous approval 
of the people of my district for so 
doing. 

That law had scarcely been enacted 
before our factories were humming 
with the rattle of the busy looms, our 
forges glowed with furnace fires, the 
ports of our commerce stirred with 
the pulses of enlarged trade, and im- 
provements in city, town, and county 
added to the beauty and utility of the 
land. I am not here to criticise or 
strike down the system which has 
brought such prosperity to our people, 
either piecemeal or otherwise, but I 
am here to protest against its distri- 
bution. Every vote I cast from the 
beginning to the end of this proceed- 
ing shall be cast with the desire to 
preserve to the American workman the 



blessed American privilege which he 
now enjoys, and I decline to join in 
any wholesale raid upon it. 

Surplus Wages in the Savings Banks. 

This system has put to the credit of 
our laboring people more money than 
they have ever saved before. Our sav- 
ings banks are the repositories of their 
surplus wages, and millions upon mil- 
lions are being stored away for their 
old age and the dependence of the 
family, and I decline 

I decline to subscribe to the idea 
that we should begin cutting this Tar- 
iff piecemeal in the interest of our 
rivals across the sea. 

When we passed the Dingley law 
there was no such commercial product 
as mercerized cotton cloth. We did 
not anticipate its manufacture. If, as 
the Senator from Iowa says, mercer- 
ized cloth was caught by the ad va- 
lorems of the Dingley law, I think he 
and I will agree that it was caught 
by accident rather than by design. 
But be that as it may, the merceriza- 
tion of cloth is a great, growing, im- 
portant industry. It is a fa-bric so 
attractive that those who have hither- 
to used foreign silks will prefer the 
mercerized goods instead. The Tariff 
which we seek by this paragraph to 
supply seems to be what is required 
to preserve and to support the in- 
dustry. 

/ Do Not Desire Foreign Mercerized Cot- 
ton to Be Used by the American Peo- 
ple. 

I will not vote to make it easy for 
them to use it so long as our domes- 
tic product can be obtained reason- 
ably, and in so doing shall be consist- 
ent with what I believe to be the best 
interest of our country. 

Therefore, Mr. President, without go- 
ing further or detaining the Senate, I 
will simply say that those who disagree 
with me are certainly actuated by the 
same honorable and worthy motives as 
myself, and without in the slightest 
degree impugning their loyalty to our 
party or their patriotism or their high 
sense of duty to their countrymen, I 
accord to them some rights that I 
take to myself. I am wholly satisfied 
with this provision and shall cheerfully 
vote to make the duty specific upon 
this line of manufactured fabrics. 



I 



CUMMINS. 



303 



"A Certain Kind of Republicanism 
Has Been Calling Me a Democrat 
for the Past Six or Eight Years." 

From the Coyxgressional Record of June 7, 
1909. 

ALBERT B. CUMMINS, of Iowa. Mr. 
President, evidently some of my Re- 
publican associates have been a little 
disturbed at the suggestion that they 
are Democrats. That has long ago 
ceased to disturb me. A certain kind 
of Republicanism has been calling me 
a Democrat for the last six or eight 
years, and I have become so accus- 
tomed to the charge that I can hear it 
with unruffled composure; and I hope 
that these friends of mine, who seem 
to think that the country at large 
will regard that as a disparagement, 
will take courage, because there is an 
intelligence abroad now that weighs 
the opinions of men and determines 
the position of men without regard to 
appellations and without regard to the 
attempt here or elsewhere to expel 
men from the Republican party be- 
cause they are not willing to accept 
the Republican doctrine as it is ex- 
pounded by those who are about us. 

I do not challenge the Republican- 
ism of my friend the Senator from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith]. He has been 
entirely consistent, and I think he will 
be consistent to the end. He does not 
believe in reducing duties at any time 
or under any circumstances. He does 
not believe in the Chicago platform. 
He does not believe in the revision of 
the Tariff that is now in progress. 
Never at any time did he lift his voice 
to bring about the revision through 
which we are now passing. I applaud 
his consistency. I admire the courage 
that he manifests in standing here and 
telling the American people that rather 
than reduce a single duty in the Ding- 
ley law he would lift up the bulwark 
that surrounds the American market. 

Would Add to the Height of the Tariff 
WalL 

His illustration, so apt, so pertinent, 
so accurate of the dike that keeps out 
the ravages of the sea from that little 
country abroad, shows precisely what 
he thinks of the Tariff; and he would 
year by year add a little to the height 
of the Tariff wall lest by some mis- 
chance, lest by some development, lest 



by some growth that we can not an- 
ticipate, in an evil moment a drop of 
water shall spill over this Protection 
to a defenseless people. 

I understand him, and I rather ad- 
mire him because he has been so per- 
sistent and courageous in the effort to 
destroy the reduction of any of the 
duties in the Dingley law. 

I have no hesitation in saying that 
while I am a profound believer in the 
doctrine of Protection, while I will 
vote to place upon any product of an 
American mine, factory, shop, farm, a 
duty that will measure amply — not 
meagerly, but amply and fully — the 
difference between the cost of produc- 
ing that article here and abroad, there 
is one right held by the American 
people more sacred than the right of 
Protection. There is one thing more 
necessary to preserve our institutions 
in their full vigor and to preserve the 
character of our people in its full ex- 
altation than the principle of Protec- 
tion. There is one thing we must hav( 
if America is to accomplish the des- 
tiny that we all fondly believe lies be- 
fore her, and that is a fair and an 
even chance upon the part of every 
man, woman, and child in the battle 
of life. This is the most potent force 
in the civilization of the present age, 
and when we look into the commercial 
world we call this force "competition." 
That we must have. I want the com- 
petition of the United States, if possi- 
ble, but I want the competition of the 
world, if necessary. 

The consumer — that much-maligned, 
that much-despised, that supposed 
mythical man, 

The Consumer Is Better Entitled to Com- 
petition Than the Producer Is to Pro- 
tection. 

And I found my political economy 
upon that fundamental principle. 

It is idle. Senators, to say that men 
who believe there ought to be a limit 
to duties are disloyal Republicans. I 
was very sorry to hear the Senator 
from Rhode Island say that those who 
were voting for the report of the com- 
mittee were loyal Republicans. I have 
no doubt they are, but I fear that he 
intended to have it inferred that they 
are the only loyal Republicans in this 
Chamber. 



304 



ALDRICH. BEVERIDGE. CUMMINS. HEYBURN. 



Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, no; I did not In- 
tend that. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Just what did the 
Senator intend? 

Mr. ALDRICH. My intention seemed 
to be perfectly plain. We are here 
charged with the responsibility of 
passing this Tariff bill, and the men 
who vote for^it and the men who sup- 
port its provisions are certainly loyal 
Republicans. I did not intend to spec- 
ify anybody else, nor do I now. 

No Man Can Put Him Out of the Repub- 
lican Party. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I am sure the men 
who vote for it are loyal Republicans, 
but I was alarmed lest unthinking 
people would draw the inference that 
in the opinion of the Senator from 
Rhode Island those who differed from 
the committee were not loyal Repub- 
licans. I have myself expended as 
much time and as much strength for 
the Republican party as any man of 
my years in this Chamber. I love its 
history; I am proud of its leaders; I 
have sublime faith in the justice of 
Its principles; and as I have had occa- 
sion to say more than once, there is 
no man, I care not how powerful he 
may be, how influential he may be, 
who can put me out of the Republican 
party. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I hope the Senator 
will do me the justice to say that I 
alluded to him expressly, or intended 
to do so, when I said that there were 
Senators here who had always held 
that view — of course, inside of the Re- 
publican party. I had no idea of saying 
that the Senate from Iowa or any 
other Senator was outside of the Re- 
publican party. I have no authority 
to say whether a man is a Republican 
or not. That is a question over which 
I have no control and no desire to 
have control. 

Not in Conflict with the Platform. 

Mr. CUMMINS. May I say to the 
Senator from Rhode Island, I hope, and 
all Republicans holding a faith like 
mine hoped, that the Committee on 
Finance, with its more extensive op- 
portunities for knowledge and investi- 
gation, with its more technical infor- 
mation respecting these subjects, would 
eliminate before the bill was reported 
these dutie.s which, according to the 



statement of the Senator from Rhode 
Island, are in conflict with the plat- 
form announced at Chicago, and to 
which every Republican in the land is 
pledged, if he desires to remain a 
member of that organization? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I did not say they 
were in conflict with the platform 
adopted at Chicago, nor do I think that 
they are. 



We Should Settle the Trust Question 
Ourselves and Not Call In Foreign- 
ers. 

From the Congressional Record of June 7, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
Before the Senator from Iowa leaves 
the consideration of the principle he 
had under consideration, I feel im- 
pelled to make a suggestion or two in 
his time. 

It can not be possible that any part 
of this body or of the American people 
have lost confidence in the power of 
our Government to deal effectively 
with any evil that may have arisen. 
It can not be possible that in order to 
punish any people belonging to us or 
to settle any condition that has arisen 
we must call in mercenary assistance. 
It can not be possible that a condi- 
tion has arisen in our business world 
at home that we can not manage. 

For instance, the suggestion of the 
Senator from Iowa and other Sena- 
tors that a condition of business which 
is denominated the trust, has arisen 
and gained such a hold upon us that 
we can not manage it, and therefore 
we must go outside and call in the 
nations of the earth to overcome com- 
petition; for economic conditions here 
ought to be absolutely under the con- 
trol of our own people. If trusts or 
unholy combinations have arisen, the 
laws of this country and the American 
people ought to be able to 'deal with 
them. 

It seems too much like an admission 
of inability to say that we can not 
deal with you and we will go abroad 
and get the mercenaries of trade from 
other countries to come in here and 
settle this question of competition, be- 
cause the law of competition is in- 
volved just as much in the Tariff regu- 
lations of foreign goods as it Is be- 
tween our own people. That is the 



IIEYBURN. CUMMINS. 



305 



way this whole Tariff question appears 
to me. It is a question, it appears to 
me, whether we settle the question 
among- ourselves or whether you shall 
go outside and import some business 
virus with which we shall inoculate 
the American people and thus heal this 
imaginary or real disease, whichever 
it may be. 

It does not appear to me, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that we are justified in thus esti- 
mating the capacity of the American 
people to govern themselves. That is 
the reason why I vote for the bill re- 
ported by the committee. I do not 
support it with that warmth and zeal 
that I would had they maintained the 
duties that had heretofore existed and 
that stand between the competition of 
the American people and other na- 
tions. 

That is the kind of a Protectionist I 
am. Upon articles that we can not 
produce and articles that the people 
only use at their own convenience or 
choice I would impose a duty that 
would make a revenue that would meet 
the requirements of this country. Upon 
anything that the American people 
either do produce or can be taught to 
produce I would see to it that they 
had competition to themselves. There 
are 95,000,000 consumers, and pretty 
nearly that many producers, in this 
country. I would give them 

An Opportunity in the Field of Competi- 
tion at Home 
to manufacture and sell and consume 
among themselves, and if any stranger 
wanted to come in with his wares, I 
would say, "There is a charge of so 
much admission before you can come 
in to do business with the American 
people." They are great enough and 
strong enough and have resources 
enough to constitute a world were ev- 
ery other country swept into oblivion. 
That is the kind of a Protective Tariff 
I am for. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, the 
Senator from Idaho is a formidable 
and an accurate sharpshooter, but he 
did not shoot at me. I suppose his 
victim will be found somewhere, suf- 
fering from the wound that he has in- 
flicted, but he misunderstood me if his 
shot was intended to meet my argu- 
ment. 

I agree, Mr. President, that the duty 



upon all competitive articles should be 
high enough to enable our own pro- 
ducers to supply our market. I agree 
to that. That does not destroy compe- 
tition, because there may be, and there 
ought to be, competition among the 
American producers. But if you make 
the duty higher than necessary to en- 
able our producers to supply our own 
market, paying American wages and 
giving American capital a fair reward, 
then if the combination or monopoly 
which I know the Senator from Idaho 
thinks is imaginary, but which I know 
to be real, comes into existence, it Is 
able to lift the American price above 
the American level without Inviting 
competition from anywhere in the 
world. 

Mr. HEYBURN. I merely rose to 
correct any impression which may He 
in the mind of the Senator from "Iowa 
that I believe there is no such thing as 
a monopoly, because we have antimo- 
nopoly legislation, and if we enforce 
it, it will doubtless be effective to con- 
trol monopolies. I would have no com- 
petition in a foreign country, because 
I would only deal with them in rela- 
tion to those things which we can not 
produce ourselves. 

No Competition Unless Home Producers 
Lift Up the Price. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I would have no 
competition with a foreign country — 
that is, assuming we are dealing in 
competitive products — unless our home 
producers lift up the price, as they 
have been doing and as they are do- 
ing now, above a fair American level. 

Mr. HEYBURN. May I ask the Sen- 
ator if that is the point at which he 
would call in the foreign mercenaries 
to regulate our home affairs? 

Mr. CUMMINS. I hardly know what 
the Senator from Idaho means with 
regard to "mercenaries." I remember 
that in the war of the Revolution 
there were certain Hessian troops who 
were called "mercenaries." I suppose 
in a general way that means troops 
that fight not for patriotism, but for 
pay. If that be true, then all the 
troops of commerce are mercenary, and 
they are fighting here for pay as vig- 
orously and valiantly as I ever saw 
troops fight anywhere. 

Mr. HEYBURN. I should like to 
have the understanding of the Sena- 



306 



HEYRURN. CUMMINS. SCOTT. DOLLIVER. GALLINGER. 



tor from Iowa a little clearer as to 
mercenaries. A mercenary is a man 
who takes the part of somebody else 
for a consideration, and w^hen a for- 
eign country comes into our market 
for a consideration to settle the ques- 
tion of competition among our own 
people, it is a mercenary. 

/s ihe American Market the Birthright of 
the American Producer? 

Mr. CUMMINS. I do not think there 
Is a difference of opinion between the 
Senator from Idaho and myself. ■ I may 
differ a little from him in just one 
respect; and in that his opinion seems 
to be shared by a g'reat many others 
here. He treats the American market 
as though it were the birthright of 
the American producer. 

Mr. HEYBURN. That is right. 

Mr. CUIMIMINS. He does not contem- 
plate that there ever will be a pur- 
chaser in the American market who 
has any right whatsoever. I believe 
in a market that is made up of pro- 
ducers and sellers and purchasers and 
consumers. I say that the consumer 
has some rights in that market just 
as sacred as have the producer and 
the seller. I would fill the market with 
American made goods if I could, but 
I would not fill it with American made 
goods if to do so involved the inflic- 
tion upon the consumer or the user of 
an extortionate price for the things 
they are compelled to buy. 



American Hosiery Workers in Great 
Need of Adequate Protection, 

From the Congressional Record of June 7, 
1909. 

NATHAN B. SCOTT, of West Vir- 
ginia. I hope it will be the pleasure 
of the Committee on Finance to re- 
store the Payne rates in tliis para- 
graph. If the committee does not see 
proper to agree to it at this time, I 
shall try to put it in when we get 
Into the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
question is on agreeing to the amend- 
ment of the Committee on Finance, 

Mr. DOLLIVER. It is a little diffi- 
cult to those of us who do not see dis- 
tinctly in the night to discover what 
was the occasion of striking out the 
House provisions and what changes 



are made in the italics reported by 
the Senate committee modifying in any 
way the meaning of the House provi- 
sion and the provision of the present 
law. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the Senator will al- 
low me. I am Very sorry to say the Sen- 
ate committee amendment reduces the 
proposed Tariff that was in the Payne 
bill, and that is the point I am object- 
ing to. These people in my State have 
built up this industry and have made 
it one of the greatest manufacturing 
concerns that we have In our State. 
I went through it laat fall. It employs 
a great many women and girls, and 
they earn fair wages, anywhere from 
three and one-half to seven dollars a 
week, by working five and one-half 
days. Since they have gone into the 
business the reduction has been nearly 
50 per cent on the class of goods they 
are making, coming into competition 
with the foreign materials. They are 
only asking to have the rate that was 
originally in the bill when it came to 
the Senate restored. 

The Duty Ought to Be Substantially In- 
creased. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, I 
venture to express the hope that the 
proposed amendment by the Commit- 
tee on Finance will not be agreed to, 
or if agreed to, that the House pro- 
vision will be retained in conference. 
I have in mind at the present time 
several hosiery mills in New Hamp- 
shire that have been trying to compete 
with Germany during the past three 
years. To-day one of them is entirely 
idle, and the others are working on 
short time. The present duty is not 
adequate; it is not Protective, and 
ought to be substantially increased. 

Mr. President, at the port of New 
York alone during the months of Janu- 
ary, February, and March, 12,874,244 
pairs of hose came into this country: 
and the deluge continues. It is an 
absolute impossibility under the rates 
of the Dingley law for our hosiery 
mills to compete with the mills of 
Germany. I have in my hands Senate 
Document No. 16, and turning to page 
53 I find from our consul at Chemnitz 
these words: 

Chemnitz hosiery manufacturers sell 
nearly one-hajf of their total product in 
normal years to the United States, and 
the amount is about four times greater 



GALLINGER. SMITH. PENROSE. 



807 



than what is required for consumption 
in Germany itself. In certain cases 
American firms contract for the entire 
annual product of various Chemnitz ho- 
siery mills; in others, one or two Amer- 
ican customers may contract for the chief 
bulk of wares produced by single mills. 

Mr. President, that is the sitviation. 
The hosiery manufacturers of Chem- 
nitz, in Germanj% are selling their 
products in the United States because 
our manufacturers are utterly unable 
to compete with them under the rates 
of duty imposed by the existing law. 
The House of Representatives, recog- 
nizing that fact, increased the duties 
to what they thought was a reason- 
able Protective point, which I think, 
ought to be continued beyond perad- 
venture. 

Prefers to Leg/' s fate for the Poor Women 
Who Wor/c in Hosiery tVfitfs. 

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Dolli- 
ver] talks about the good ladies of 
Chicago. It is true, Mr. President, 
that a great concern in Chicago did 
succeed in getting up quite a move- 
ment on the part of the women of 
Chicago, who demanded that the rates 
should be reduced from those fixed by 
the House bill; but it is equally true 
that the women empl03'ed in the hos- 
iery mills of this country, thousands 
and thousands strong, have entered a 
protest against reducing the rates fixed 
by the House. For my part, I prefer 
to legislate for the poor women who 
are earning their living in these hos- 
iery mills rather than for the women 
of Chicago, who can afford to buy hose 
at a price such as the mills of the Uni- 
ted States can afford to manufacture 
them for. 

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland. The Sena- 
tor from New Hampshire • states that 
the hosiery manufactories in his State 
are not working full time. I should 
like to ask the Senator if he knows 
of any manufacturing industry in this 
country that is working full time? 

Mr. GALLINGER. Oh, a great many. 

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland. I do not 
know many. 

Mr. GALLINGER. A great many. 

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland. There 
may be such, but they are exceptional. 
I want to say to the Senator from New 
Hampshire that there is no more rea- 
son why this industry should be Pro- 
tected in order that the mills ma,y 



work on full time than that other 
manufactures in this country should 
be Protected. 

Twefve Milfion Pairs of Hose Imported in 
Three Months. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Well, Mr. Presi- 
dent, there is every reason why it 
should be Protected to the point where 
it would prevent the importation in 
three months into the port of New 
York of over 12,000,000 pairs of hose. 
That is only one port of our country 
which shows that we are being liter- 
ally deluged with German hose. 

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland. I know 
of no other article that is Protected 
much better than hosiery. 

Mr. GALLINGER. It simply is not 
adequately Protected. That is the diffi- 
culty. 

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland. And there 
is no reason why the people of the 
whole country should be subjected to 
an unreasonable duty in order to Pro- 
tect a few manufacturing interests in 
the State of New Hampshire or in any 
other State. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, the 
Senator from Maryland is getting rath- 
er narrow in his discussion w^hen he 
alludes to the State of New Hampshire 
in this connection. This industry is 
carried on in a great many States. 

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland. ^I say or 
any other State. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Yes; or any other 
State. I say to the Senator from 
Maryland that this industry to-day is 
absolutely languishing, and has been 
languishing for several years. It is 
utterly impossible — and I speak from 
knowledge — to carry it on successfully 
in competition with the underpaid la- 
bor of Germany, where our merchants 
go into the great city of Chemnitz, 
buy the product there and bring it into 
this country and undersell the manu- 
facturers of the United States. 

We Pay Four Times the German Rate of 
Wages. 

Mr. PENROSE. There are some 600 
hosiery mills located in the country. 
In over 32 States. These hosiery mills 
employ about 50,000 people, on whom 
are dependent for a living some 500,000 
persons. They are scattered all over 
the North, the South, and the West.. 

The German wages are about 25 



ao8 



PExMiOSE. boLLIVEH. OALLiXOEM 



cents, where we pay $1. The hosiery 
concerns are not open to any charge 
of being in a trust or ever having been 
In a trust or likely to be in a trust, 
so far as that statement may be a 
consolation to those who become ap- 
prehensive with a suspicion of such an 
occurrence. 

I am told that the Importations for 
last April are 63 per cent greater than 
they were for April, 1908. The impor- 
tations for the last few years are most 
striking. In 1903 they were $8,000,- 
000; in 1906 they rose to considerably 
over $9,700,000: in 1907 to $11,000,000, 
and in 1908 to nearly $11,000,000. 

The rates of the Payne bill will have 
to be adopted by the Senate In this 
connection or the manufacturers of 
hosiery will have to reduce the wages 
of their employees 20 or 25 per cent 
or close their mills, as it is impossible 
for them to proceed under the Dingley 
law. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. What class of cot- 
ton hosiery does the Senator refer to 
as being threatened with this danger- 
ous foreign invasion? 

Mr. PENROSE. All hosiery, as I un- 
derstand. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Does it affect what 
is called clock hosiery? 

Mr. PENROSE. What hosiery? 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Clock hosiery. 

Mr. GALLINGER. It very seriously 
affects the higher price hosiery of that 
character. 
Affects All the Hosiery Made in America. 

Mr. PENROSE. As I understand, it 
affects all the hosiery that is made 
by American producers. 

Mr. President, there are individual 
concerns now protesting against the 
proposed hosiery schedule who have 
more money than all the hosiery man- 
ufacturers in the country combined. 



The middleman's profit, which runs 
from 60 to 100 per cent, should con- 
vince any fair-minded man who has 
the prosperity of the country at heart 
that this small advance in duty can 
not affect the consumer. 

The contention of the National As- 
sociation of Hosiery and Underwear 
Manufacturers for an increase in the 
Tariff on cotton hosiery is based en- 
tirely on the cost of manufacturing 
abroad and in this country. 

The Tariff of 1897 does not measure 
this differential in cost. In July, 1908, 
the manufacturers of Chemnitz, Ger- 
many, forced a lockout of their em- 
ployees, which ended by the help re- 
turning to work at a reduction of 
about 25 per cent in wages. 

Investigation shows that the follow- 
ing is about the 

Comparative Difference in Wages 

at the present time. German wages 
can be substantiated by the govern- 
ment's official reports. 

Chemnitz. 

Per week. 

Males (knitters) $5.00 to $6.50 

Males (finishers) ' 3.00 to 4.00 

Females 1.50 to 3.50 

United States. 

Per week. 

Males (knitters) $22.00 to $33.00 

Males (finishers) 11.00 to 16.00 

Females 5.00 to 13.00 

Wages are according to class and 
grade of work and skill required; deft- 
ness and ability largely enter in the 
matter of wages, the scale of wage be- 
ing based on piecework. 

I ask to have inserted a memoran- 
dum giving these figures more in de- 
tail. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. In 
the absence of objection, permission 
Is granted. 

The memorandum referred to is as 
follows: 



Imports of 
Dozens. 
iQAo 3,814,055 

1904 ;:: 4.119.579 

\loi 4.232,028 

iqXr 4.690.870 

ilo?;: ::::::::::: 5.128,726 



1908, 



4,829,123 



Cotton Hosiery. 
Value. 
$4,948,390 
5,430,905 
5,424,060 
6,119,195 
7,019,394 
6,855,075 



Duties. 
$3,149,387 
3,264,040 
3,287,518 
3,675,829 
4,138,741 
3,994,824 



Total value. 

$8,098,247 

8,694,945 

8,711,638 

9,795,024 

11,158.135 

10,849,899 



I 



Mr. PENROSE. In 1908, when Amer- 
ican hosiery mills were being operated 
on half and three-quarter time, the 
importations fell off $300,000 only, ow- 
ing to revised costs of manufacturing 



In Germany and reductions in the price 
of hosiery. 

Mr. President, there is another men- 
ace to this Industry which we must 
not lose sight of, and that Is the In- 



l^ENiiiOSi^. (iALLIXGKH. KLKlN^. 



l:U)n 



creasing competition from Japan. A 
pure silk hose is retailed in Tokyo 
and Yokohama at $1 Mexican or 50 
cents in American money per pair. 

Investigation has disclosed the fact 
that the manufacturer sells the same 
articles at about $4 United States cur- 
rency. At this price it would cost to 
Import, all duties and charges paid to 
New York City, about $6.55 per dozen 
pairs for the Japanese silk article. 

Orienial Competition. 

This hose, from the standpoint of a 
hosiery manufacturer, is absolutely the 
most perfect article known to the craft, 
combining, as it does, all the best fea- 
tures of both foreign and American 
made hosiery. 

The frame on which this hose is 
made does not, to the best knowledge 
of any one in the business here, exist 
outside of Japan. The product Is abso- 
lutely perfect in every respect and can 
not be criticised in any way. 

A German silk-lace hose of similar 
quality, while possessing only part of 
the best features of the exhibit, costs 
in Germany at wholesale about 40 
marks, which would make the cost in 
the United States, duties and expenses 
paid, about $16 per dozen pairs. 

Japanese hosiery workers, according 
to last reports, receive wages as fol- 
lows: iVTales, 25 cents; females, 9 
cents to 15 cents per day. The day's 
work Is from twelve to fourteen hours, 
according to the season of the year. 

Up to the present time the Japa- 
nese have not attempted to export 
their hosiery to this country, prefer- 
ring first to gain the markets of the 
Orient; but the day is not far distant 
when they will be in a position to 
force the American market. 

Mr, President, this industry, as I 
have said. Is scattered all over the 
country. It gives employment to men, 
women, and children, and is a bene- 
faction in every community where It 
exists, I join with what I assume to 
be the attitude of the Senator from 
Iowa, that something can be done later 
on to alleviate their condition. 

An effort was made to create the 
impression that these mills had all 
been working on full time, or very 
nearly full time, and were in a pros- 
perous condition. I have here a very 
large number of statements from mills 



all over the country, setting forth 
that while it is true some of these 
mills have been running during the 
winter at a reduced rate in order to 
keep their employees at work and to 
keep their machinery going, yet that 
condition is rapidly passing away, and 
few of them are working at more than 
60 or 70 per cent of their capacity; 
that many of them are closed alto- 
gether, and that, in the opinion of 
every one engaged in the industry, 
there is no future for it unless the 
Payne rates are restored to the Tariff 
bill. 

Undervalued Hosiery from Germany. 
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr, President, 
just one word more. In this official 
communication from our consul at 
Chemnitz not only is the startling fact 
stated that almost the entire output 
of that great city is sent to the Uni- 
ted States, but it is also stated that 
they are selling to the American im- 
porters at a less price than they sell 
to the domestic market. So that these 
goods are not only being sold lower 
here than they are sold to the people 
of Germany, but they are being prac- 
tically dumped upon the American 
market to the extent of the output of 
those immense mills. 



Putting Domestic Products on the 
Free List Is Destruction of Prop- 
erty Interests. 

From the Congressional Record of Tune 8, 
1909. 

STEPHEN B. ELKINS, of West Vir- 
ginia. Mr. President, the Tariff de- 
bate in the Senate and the discussion 
In the public press make plain one 
fact, that the Protective policy and 
Protection sentiment is stronger 
throughout the country and with the 
people than at any other period in its 
history. The Senators who claim that 
the rates are too high and ought to 
be reduced, I think, are good Protec- 
tionists and are sincere in what they 
are endeavoring to bring about. 

But I do not agree with those Sena- 
tors in the reduction of duties down- 
ward when they wish to go as far as 
the free list. I want to stop some- 



310 



ELKINS. 



where this side of the free list. I 
think the products of West Virginia 
are entitled to Protection, the same 
as the products of other States. I 
want to put the reasons for Protecting 
them on the same ground that is 
claimed for the manufactured products 
and the agricultural products of other 
sections of the Union. 

Putting products on the free list Is 
not reduction of duties, but it is de- 
struction of property interests, which 
is still more serious. 

Raw Maierials Entitled to Protection, 
Same as Any Other Product. 

I still believe that Protection in its 
broadest and best sense would be 
strengthened by placing a duty on 
every American product competing 
with foreign products in our markets, 
thereby insuring some measure of Pro- 
tection or some share in the distribu- 
tion of duties on all competing Ameri- 
can products discriminating against 
none. Some Senators consider what is 
called raw materials are not such 
products as are entitled to Protection. 
What is generally termed "raw ma- 
terial" in one section is the manufac- 
tured product of another. Whenever 
money Is invested in raw materials and 
labor has been expended on them, 
they become manufactured products 
and are entitled to Protection the same 
as any other product and for the same 
reason. 

Bismarck, more than twenty years 
ago, attributed the wonderful progress 
and prosperity of the United States to 
the Protective policy, and urgently ad- 
vocated Protection for the German 
Empire, which it has adopted, and is 
now a strong Protection nation. Ger- 
many Protects more of her products 
than any other country in Europe, and 
as a result is to-day most prosperous 
and leads Europe in manufacturing. 
Germany has so arranged its Tariff in 
the interest of Protection that if it 
finds a foreign article being sold in 
her markets she immediately puts a 
duty on the same almost prohibitive. 
In this way Germany drives compet- 
ing products of other countries out of 
her markets, and has obtained such a 
degree of prosperity in manufacturing 
that she not only manufactures nearly 
everything her own people consume, 
but sends her manufactured products 



to the markets of England and other 
countries. 

Reasons for Duty on Coal and Petroleum. 

I wish to give some reasons for 
maintaining a duty on coal and petrol- 
eum, among the leading and important 
industries of West Virginia and the 
whole country. 

Coal and petroleum are finished prod- 
ucts and entitled to the same consid- 
eration in fixing the duties on foreign 
products competing with American 
products in our markets as other man- 
ufactured products. 

To produce coal and petroleum re- 
quires vast capital, large plants, great 
improvements, and the employment of 
labor; indeed, everything that enters 
into the inanufacture of shoes, sugar, 
cutlery, woolen and cotton goods, to- 
bacco, gloves, on all of which there 
are, in the present bill, duties ranging 
from 50 to 150 per cent. There should 
be no difference or discrimination as 
to these products in making the Tariff. 

Importance of Coal. 

I wish now to give some figures and 
data to show the extent and import- 
ance of the coal industry of the United 
States. The production of coal last 
year, and it was a dull year, was 419,- 
000,000 tons, worth $500,000,000 at the 
mouth of the mine. This includes an- 
thracite coal. In estimating the value 
of coal, transportation has to be con- 
sidered along with it, because trans- 
poration adds so greatly to the cost of 
coal, so that in many instances it is 
worth twice as much as the coal and 
often three times as much. Therefore, 
if we consider the question of the 
transportation of 419,000,000 tons of 
coal it is equal at least to $800,000,000. 
So there is involved in the coal indus- 
try in mining and transportation this 
enormous sum of money every year. 

Coal going to New England from 
West Virginia is worth say $3.25 to 
$3.50 a ton in any of the ports of New 
England; $2.10 of this is transporta- 
tion. It is $1.40 by rail and 70 centa 
by water. West Virginia has to send 
her coal by rail 400 miles and by water 
600 miles to reach New England, to 
compete there with Nova Scotia coal. 

Nearly 3,000,000 people depend upon 
this industry for a living. There are 
thousands of towns and small com- 
munities scattered all over the country 



ELKINS. GALLINGER. 



311 



dependent almost entirely on coal min- 
ing and the coal industry, just as there 
are towns and communities every- 
where dependent upon the steel, iron, 
shoe, leather, cotton and woolen In- 
dustries. 

The capital invested in coal lands, 
mines and improvements will reach 
into thousands of millions. With this 

Vast Out/ay of Capita/ and the People 

Employed, 
it becomes a very serious matter to 
disturb or impair in any way the coal 
Industry. 

It is said this will only affect some 
of the coal States in the East and a 
few States in the Northwest. I want 
to lay it down as a general proposi- 
tion that when anything tends to re- 
duce the price of a commodity it has 
an effect upon the price of the com- 
modity all over the country, and if the 
price of coal is reduced or coal mining 
is destroyed in certain States you 
affect the price of coal generally. 

The bankers, merchants, grocers, and 
farmers near the ;mines, as well as 
many other people, are directly or in- 
directly interested. A large coal plant 
is always the nucleus of a town, 
which depends on the working of the 
mine. The abandonment or the closing 
of large and established mines, or their 
im-pairment, would destroy whole com- 
munities and towns and bring distress 
and ruin to many people. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is it not true that In 
Nova Scotia there are large coal fields 
now only waiting to be opened up and 
developed, provided there is no duty 
placed upon coal so that it can be 
brought in? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes; that is precisely 
true. New mines in Nova Scotia are 
ready to be opened whenever the duty 
of 67 cents is removed. Nova Scotia 
sent 700,000 tons of coal last year to 
New England after paying the duty. 

Would Not Benefit the Consumer. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, 
does the Senator think that putting 
coal on the free list would do much 
good so far as the consumer is con- 
cerned? 

Mr. ELKINS. No; not a bit. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I asked that ques- 
tion for the reason that we had free 
coal a few years ago, and we in New 



England, notwithstanding a million 
tons more or less were sent in from 
Nova Scotia, did not discover that we 
got our coal any cheaper because of 
the fact that it came in from Nova 
Scotia free. It displaced that much 
West Virginia and Pennsylvania coal, 
but the profits went into the pockets 
of certain well-known gentlemen, with 
whom doubtless the Senator from West 
Virginia is acquainted. 

Mr. ELKINS. The Senator is pre- 
cisely right, as he always is on econo- 
mic questions. We did not get the coal 
any cheaper, but, strange to say, we 
imported 3,000,000 tons into this coun- 
try in eight months. A part of that 
came from England. The price was 
maintained all the time. It did not go 
1 cent lower. 

IV ova Scotia Would Furnish Nearly All the 
Coal. 

But Nova Scotia has about a thou- 
sand miles square of coal, containing 
four veins of coal whose average 
hickness is about ten feet, making about 
six thousand millons of tons of coal, 
two-thirds of it as good as West Vir- 
ginia coal. Now remove the duty and 
give this coal the New England, New 
York, and the New Jersey markets, 
and the result would be that Nova 
Scotia would furnish, in a few years, 
New England nearly all the coal she 
row gets froin West Virginia, because 
Nova Scotia coal could be sold for 
lower prices. It will be asked why 
should not the people of New York 
and New England get their coal 
cheaper. The answer to this involves 
the whole question of Protection. If 
New England and the East ought to 
have cheaper coal and get it by tak- 
ing off the duty, then why should not 
the duties on all manufactured prod- 
ucts competing with those of New 
England be also taken off, so that the 
people all over the country could get 
them cheaper? The principle of Pro- 
tection is to build up our home in- 
dustries by manufacturing our own 
products — this gives our people em- 
ployment, keeps the money in the 
country, and makes this countr3^ an in- 
dependent and self-reliant nation. 

There are Americans and Canadians 
waiting to see if coal is put on the 
free list to buy coal lands in Canada, 
and if they should, and open new 



312 



ELKINS. HEYBURN. 



mines, they will ultimately take the 
New England market, I think, except 
for the very best quality of coal, and 
in a few years take all the New Eng- 
land market. The result of this would 
be so disastrous, so ruinous, and de- 
moralizing to West Virginia, Mary- 
land, and eastern Pennsylvania that 
these States can never consent to the 
loAvering of the duty on coal. 

Tariff on Coal in 1787. 

Mr. HEYBURN. If the Senator will 
permit me, before he passes from the 
question of duty, I desire to suggest 
that in the original Tariff bill a duty 
of 50 cents a ton was levied upon 
coal. That was the Tariff bill that 
w^as passed in 1787, the first Tariff bill, 
passed by the First Congress. 

Mr. ELKINS. James Madison drew 
It. 

Mr. HEYBURN. Fifty cents was the 
duty levied in order that those coal 
beds, known then to exist, but not de- 
veloped, in what was then Virginia, 
and in Pennsylvania and in Maryland, 
and with a transportation that must 
be by wagon to the place of use, 
might compete with coal from England 
which came by w^ater, and the Repre- 
sentatives of Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
and Maryland insisted on that duty of 
50 cents a ton on coal in order that 
we might be able to develop our own 
coal fields and shut out the English 
coal. I 

Mr. ELKINS. It was put in for that 
very reason. Going back in our his- 
tory, in 1854 we tried reciprocity with 
Canada for ten years in coal and other 
products, mostlj'' agricultural. I think 
there were 25 articles in the list, but 
the principal ones were agricultural 
products and coal. Canada never ex- 
ercised her treaty rights so far as 
coal was concerned, and coal carried 
a duty all through the life of that 
treaty. The result was that in ten 
years the treaty was abrogated. It 
did not work well. The reason I re- 
fer to this is that the Payne bill pro- 
vides for reciprocal arrangements be- 
tween the United States and Canada 
as to coal. 

Mr. President, I wish to emphasize 
more sharply, if I can, that no dis- 
crimination ought to be made in the 
case of the coal Industry In levying 
duties or guaranteeing Protection. 



Coal Is a Great American Industry, and 
Entitled to Protection 

the same as the Farm Products in the 
States bordering on Canada and the 
manufactured products of New Eng- 
land, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and 
New York. 

I notice that smelts, eels, barley, 
rye, pumice stone, and lemons are fa- 
vored with high duties in the pending 
bill. In looking around to find some- 
thing not Protected in Massachusetts, 
it seems eels and smelts were the only 
products not on the dutiable list, and 
instantly a duty was imposed upon 
eels and smelts. This fact, with high 
duties on nearly everything New 
York, New England, Pennsylvania, and 
New Jersey produce, encourages me to 
ask that the present duty on coal be 
not disturbed. Coal is already in the 
low-duty class. 

Coal deep in the ground as nature 
left it is raw material, and no harm 
can result if in this state it should be 
put on the free list; but when it is 
mined and brought to the surface of 
the earth, it becomes a manufactured 
product, as much so as any other man- 
ufactured product, and should share in 
such Protection as accorded other 
American products. The same may be 
said of oil 3,000 feet below the surface 
of the earth, and the untouched trees 
In the deep forests. They are raw ma- 
terials and left where nature placed 
them. I do not oppose their going on 
the free list, but when the trees are 
made into lumber and the oil pumped 
into tanks they become manufactured 
products and need Protection. 

While Regulating Trusts We Must Not De- 
stroy the Independent Producer. 

Petroleum and its products consti- 
tute one of the leading Industries of 
the United States. There are about 
170,000 oil-producing wells In the 
United States, representing, directly 
and indirectly, an outlay of about 
$700,000,000, of which the independent 
producer owns seven-eighths. Are 
you going to impair this tremendous 
Investment, seven-eighths of which be- 
longs to the independent producer, in 
order to punish the Standard Oil Com- 
pany? The Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. LaFollette] made an able speech 
yesterday. One feature of it Avas this 



ELKINS. 



313 



very Question of the evils and abuses 
of concentration and combination in 
business, but in trying- to regulate the 
trusts through the Tariff or otherwise 
we must not destroy the independent 
producer and his large interests. If 
the independent oil producer or the in- 
dependent steel maker or the inde- 
pendent producer in any other busi- 
ness is to be hurt or destroyed in try- 
ing to correct the abuses of the great 
combinations — then in the end this 
would leave everything- in the hands 
of the g-reat combinations; this sure- 
ly should be avoided. The great 
trusts and combinations can stand 
Free-Trade and survive, but the inde- 
pendent producer can not; he must g-o 
to the wall and disappear, leaving the 
trusts and combinations in charge of 
all production and without opposition. 
Would Benefit Other Countries. 
I believe Russia will have sense 
enough to send her oil here if we have 
little sense enough to take off the 
duty. It is just what anyone would 
do. If the able Senator from Indiana 
possessed oil wells in Russia, and the 
duty was taken off, he would look 
around for a ship to-morrow to trans- 
port his oil to this country. 

Placing petroleum and its products 
on the free list would benefit Russia 
Mexico. Canada, and the Dutch Indies, 
and be a great stimulant to the de- 
velopment of every foreign petroleum 
Industry. The damage that would fol- 
low would be felt by the independent 
oil producer all over the country, be- 
cause prices, too low in some locali- 
ties, as Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas 
alreadj', would still further decline! 
The Standard Oil Company could stand 
this better than the independent pro- 
ducer. 

Protection Should Be Maintained on 
Competing Products. 

Protection has been the foundation 
upon which the great manufacturing 
Industries of New England, Pennsyl- 
vania, New York, and New Jersey 
and other States have been built, and 
these industries are the growth of 
nearly a century. To ask that one- 
half of their products be put on the 
free list and low duties on the rest 
would bring ruin to these great States- 
even society itself, with the impair- 
ment of these industries, would be- 



come disorganized. Yet this is just 
what the Payne bill requires as to the 
leading and longest-established indus- 
tries of West Virginia and the South. 

Heretofore the South has opposed 
Protection, even on her own products, 
and, in my judgment, to the great 
detriment of her people and business. 
It is said the South has made poli- 
tics her business, while the North has 
made business and prosperity her poli- 
tics. Look at the difference in the 
progress and prosperity of the two sec- 
tions. Look at the triumphs and a<^- 
tonishing results in New England 
with mostly brains and granite as nat- 
ural resources, not producing enough 
meat and breadstuffs to support her 
people, with no coal, iron ore, timber 
oil, cotton, yet she leads in manufac- 
turing in many Important industries 
and her people are contented, success- 
ful, and prosperous. If New England 
had the natural resources of the South 
and her vast area she would lead all 
nations in manufacturing and general 
business, and go on not only shaping 
the destinies of this mighty Republic 
but influencing and molding the 
thoughts and economic policies of the 
world. 

Protection Has Kept the Republican Party 
in Power for Forty Years, 

and will continue to do so as long as 
the great Democratic party opposes 
this cardinal principle, long ago 
adopted and confirmed time and time 
again by the American people. 

The South can stand Free-Trade bet- 
ter than any portion of the Union but 
she can not go forward and make 
progress in the industrial race of the 
nation and enjoy that prosperity that 
belongs to her, by reason of her great 
advantages and natural resources if 
the products of other sections of 'the 
Union have high duties and Protec- 
tion and low duties or none at all on 
her products. This makes the race un- 
even. For fifty years the South has 
been denied advantages other sections 
have enjoyed. 

In looking at the schedules in the 
pending bill no important American 
farm or manufactured product in New 
England, New York. Pennsylvania. 
^ew Jersey, the Northwest, and Pa- 
cific States, competing with foreign 
products, is on the free list; not one 



814 



KLKIXS. HEYBURN. 



Then, why should the leading indus- 
tries of certain other sections and 
States, such as coal, lumber, oil, and 
other products, be put on the free list 
or have a low duty? This is dis- 
crimination which should not obtain In 
making- a Tariff bill for all the people. 
The people of the South are the con- 
sumers of the farm and manufactured 
products of other States and pay their 
part of the duties that Protect them, 
and in turn, according to all the rules 
of fairness and justice, the products of 
West Virginia and the South should 
be Protected. 

A True Protectionist , Can Not Be Selfish 
and Partial ; 

he can not ask for a duty or Protec- 
tion on the products of his State or 
section and deny it to other States and 
sections. With him Protection should 
be an economic principle; not local, but 
national. 

The Protectionist votes to maintain 
Protection to American industries and 
American \vages, always having the 
good of the whole country and the 
good of the people in mind. 

A Tariff never covxld be made if the 
States voted for duties only on their 
own products and against placing a 
duty on the products of other States, 
which they do not produce. If there is 
to be a revision or change in the Tariff 
downward or upward, or however 
made, I protest why make it down- 
ward on coal, oil, lumber, iron ore, 
and other Southern products and not 
on highly Protected .products? Why 
reduce the duty on lumber 50 per cent 
and increase or retain a high duty on 
wheat, barley, cotton, woolen goods, 
cutlery, shoes, sugar, and many other 
articles? 

The Tariff should be general in prin- 
ciple and application, not favoring 
certain products. States, and sections, 
while discriminating against others. 

The Republican party, strongly in- 
trenched as it is in public confidence, 
can not continue to hold power if it 
fails to adhere to Protection on broad 
lines, and, in making the Tariff, dis- 
criminates In favor of the products of 
certain States and sections. No sec- 
tion of this country could be prosper- 
ous if part of Its manufactured and 
other products were on the free list 
or had only a low duty. 



Duties should not be mountain high 
on some products and no duties on 
others. 

The present Tariff bill, to last and 
give satisfaction, must be made right. 
Duties must be fairly and justly levied 
and distributed on foreign products, 
with no favoritism to States or sec- 
tions. 



Over $135,000,000 in American 
Wages Involved in the Woolen 
Schedule. 

From the Congressional Record of June 8, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
Mr. President, I do not know that I 
can add very much to the technical 
discussion affecting the manufacture 
of woolen goods, but there is a prac- 
tical side to this question affecting 
the people that constitute a very con- 
siderable percentage of the consumers 
of this country as well as producers 
that should not be lost sight of. We 
are apt to lose the consideration of 
that question in the consideration of 
these mysterious figures affecting the 
classification of imports and the du- 
ties upon them. 

Of course the value of our home 
product depends upon the quantity and 
the condition of the importations of 
wool. If the people can obtain all the 
wool they want from abroad upon bet- 
ter terms than they can obtain it at 
home, they will largely buy the foreign 
product; and the purpose of a Pro- 
tective Tariff is to regulate the condi- 
tions under which foreign wool may 
come into this country, so that there 
will be a greater burden upon the for- 
eign wool and its products than upon 
the domestic wool. That is the spirit 
of the legislation now under considera- 
tion. 

Largely we must appeal first to the 
labor item. I find, from a reference to 
the report of the committee of the 
Senate, that there are $135,069,063 of 
wages involved in this controversy. 
Those are the figures given us by the 
committee, and they are no doubt cor- 
rect. That sum of money represents 
more than the value of all the land, 
with the buildings and improvements 
upon it, in about 17 States. There are 
17 States in this Union whose total 
valuation of lands and improvements 



IIEYBURN. 



315 



falls below the wages item in thi. 
schedule. I state that in oi'der that 
we may carrj^ in our minds all along 
some comparison upon which to de- 
termine the equities of this question. 

There is not an enterprise in this 
country in which the wage item en- 
ters more largely than into the ques- 
tion of the woolen schedule. The 
largest item in the woolen schedule is 
men's clothing. That, of course, in- 
cludes the cloths to which the Sen- 
ator from Wyoming referred, but that 
item includes the wages of the people 
who convert the wool into clothing. 
That is about one-third of the wage 
item. 

Increased Cost of Producing Wool. 

A brief comparison of the figures 
will throw some light upon this ques- 
tion as it affects the men who produce 
the wool. At the time of the enact- 
ment of the Dingley bill it cost $1,479 
to prodvice in bale the wool of 1,200 
sheep. To-day it costs $2,840 to do 
the same thing. There is a difference 
in wages to the men producing that 
item of $1,365 between free wool and 
the Dingley Act. 

That item is denominated as a flock. 
Sheep raisers divide their sheep into 
flocks for convenience of care and pro- 
tection. So it will be seen that the 
increase is practically 100 per cent of 
the cost of raising a flock of sheep 
and producing the wool to-day, as 
against the cost at the time of the en- 
actment of the Dingley bill. Why? 
Because men at that time were work- 
ing for less wages; were compelled to 
submit to less profit. And these are 
the items: In 1897, 1 herder, at $35 
per month, $420 for the 3'ear; 1 camp 
tender, at $25 a month, $300 per year; 
board for the two, $25 a month, $300 
a j^ear; shearing, at 7 cents each, $119; 
feeding hay, at 20 cents each, $340. 
That makes vip the total of $1,479 for 
taking care of and taking the wool 
from a flock of sheep. 

Compare those Avages, and you will 
have a very fair idea of the differing 
conditions under Free-Trade and a 
Protective Tariff. The man who re- 
ceived $35 a month in 1897 now re- 
ceives $50 a month. The man who re- 
ceived $25 a month as camp tender 
now receives $40 a month. The man 
who boarded them for $25 a month un- 
der Free-Trade now gets $50 per 



month. We now pay to the Govern- 
ment a grazing fee of 7 cents upon 
each of these sheep, and that Is 
whether they are on forest reserves 
or on any other government land. The 
shearing which in 1897 cost 7 cents 
to-day costs 10 cents; that is, the men 
get 3 cents apiece more now for shear- 
ing the sheep than they did then. The 
hay in 1897 cost 20 cents for each 
sheep and to-day it costs 50 cents. 

With Restored Protection the Tables 
Turned. 

Mr. President, under the Free-Trade 
policy and practice of the Democratic 
parts' the importations of wool from 
foreign countries almost doubled — 
some years more than doubled — and 
the exportations of wool fell off pro- 
portionately. That meant that we 
were sending our money abroad to get 
clothes, the product of wool. If we had 
it, we were sendirg it abroad to buy 
the products of other nations. 

Immediately upon the enactment of 
the Dingley bill and the restoration of 
a duty upon wool the tables turned 
and we began to produce wool in this 
country, and the importations de- 
creased notwithstanding that our 
necessities were enhanced by our 
prosperity and the balance of trade 
has been in our favor on this product 
ever since, to the extent of a great 
many million dollars. 

There has been $900,000,000 of wool 
produced in this country since the 
Dingley bill was enacted, which would 
not have been produced under the 
Free-Trade Wilson-Gorman bill. I 
take that from the figures showing 
the exports and the imports and the 
production and the use of this article. 
Those figures represent good govern- 
ment in the interest of the people. 

No Pledge of Downward Revision. 

This talk of being under obligations 
to revise the Tariff downward came 
from somewhere; I do not know from 
where; from some political, I was go- 
ing to say swamp, like a miasma. No 
man dared to mention it in the na- 
tional platform. It was a concession, 
a sop, thrown by those lacking in con- 
fidence to the voters whose support 
they thought they had to have. Four 
j^ears ago, with similar conditions, 
without any such pretense, we cast the 



316 



HEYBURN. NELSON. 



largest majority for the leader of the 
Republican party that had ever been 
cast. Have conditions changed so in 
four years that we must add some 
promise? There is nothing in the plat- 
form of the Republican party which 
requires us, as suggested by the Sena- 
tor from Iowa, to make any concession, 
because some one or many may have 
promised a revision downward. They 
seem to think that the Republican 
party never had a platform until the 
last Chicago convention. 

The platform of the Republican 
party includes every declaration which 
has been made since its organization, 
and the declarations of 1860 and 1864, 
and in every other campaign, are still 
a part of it. 

The man who denies it had better 
review and revise his Republicanism. 
There is not a plank in its history, in 
any campaign, that any Republican 
would to-day strike out. If we do not 
repeat them all every time, it is be- 
cause we have written them into the 
laws of the country, for which the Re- 
publican party stands, and it is no 
longer necessary to repeat them. But 
they have not been dropped out. We 
post our ledger every four years and 
include conditions that have arisen as 
a basis of a declaration to the people, 
but we do not unwrite the words of 
the Republican platforms of the past. 

Mr. NELSON. If the statement of 
the Senator from Idaho is correct, and 
all the object of the revision was to 
assure the people that the existing 
Tariff was correct, 

Why Are We Here to Pass a Tariff Bill? 

What is the purpose of it? Ought 
we not to adhere to the Dingley law? 

Mr. HEYBURN. I will refer the in- 
quiry to the Senator from Minnesota 
as to why we are here. We are not 
here because the Republican party 
had proven incompetent to manage 
the affairs of this Government. We 
are not here because we did not have 
prosperity under Republican rule. We 
are not here because we intended to 
repudiate the lifelong principles of the 
Republican party. We are not here 
for any of those reasons. 

Mr. NELSON. The Senator miscon- 
strues me. When I used the expres- 
sion "What are we here for?" I meant 
why are we here pretending to revise 
the Tariff, 



Mr. HEYBURN. We are here look- 
ing it over. We are here inspecting 
the great building occupied by the peo- 
ple of this country, to see whether or 
not it is in good working order. It 
was in good working order at the 
time of the Chicago convention. It 
has been in good working order al- 
ways when the Republican party has 
controlled the destinies of this coun- 
try; and it will be in good working 
order only so long as the Republican 
party controls its destinies along the 
lines upon which that party has al- 
ways rested. 

That is the answer I make to the 
Senator. He has been a lifelong mem- 
ber of the Republican party, if I am 
correctly advised, and he knows that 
the foundation stone upon which it 
rests is a Protective Tariff that will 
give the people of this country the 
markets of the country without any 
close competition with the producers 
of other countries. This thing of try- 
ing to scale the wool Protection down 
to a hairbreadth and then drawing fine 
lines and indulging in close analysis 
to see whether or not it is possible for 
our business opponent to slip over the 
line in a night and invade our ground 
is not my kind of revision or Repub- 
licanism. 

Running Higfi Priced American Laoor 
Against the Cheap Labor of Europe. 

What do you propose to do In this 
country? You propose to run the 
American labor engaged in this indus- 
try, the average weekly wages of 
which is $8.31 per week, against the 
Italian labor, which is $3.77 a week, 
and I speak from official figures, the 
identical labor, the same number of 
hours. 

Mr. NELSON. I do not understand 
that the Italians are raising sheep or 
sending any wool over here. 

Mr. HEYBURN. The Senator would 
be astonished to know how many of 
them are engaged in the manufacture 
of articles within this schedule. I 
have it, but I want to finish the state- 
ment from the comparative tables. 
You would be running the American 
labor, that receives American wages 
and lives like an American, up against 
the corresponding labor of France at 
$ri.03 per week. You would be run- 
ning the American labor, with the at- 
tributes of the American citizen h^^ 



HEYBURN. 



317 



hind it. against Eng-lish labor at $5.72 
per week. 

Why would we who are here to rep- 
resent these American laborers trade 
off their prosperity in a vain attempt 
to follow after some untried theories 
of government, when we have, and 
know that we have, conditions here, 
the result of the republican system of 
government, that leaves us a margin 
which represents the profit to the 
American people? 

Mr. President, I have heard some 
suggestions here as to the basis of a 
Protective Tariff that have not ac- 
corded with my idea. All these com- 
parisons have been between great en- 
terprises in America and like enter- 
prises abroad. Senators have been 
comparing how possible it was for the 
well equipped and great American 
factories to compete with those abroad. 
Where, in their minds, were the small 
enterprises of this country? The true 
basis of a Protective Tariff is not with 
the great enterprises that might com- 
pete because of the volume of their 
business. It begins with the smaller 
concerns. The question in my mind is 
not whether the Amoskeag Mills might 
compete with the foreigner, but it is 
whether the little mill down in the 
valley that represents all that men of 
smaller means have shall compete 
with him. That is Protection. The 
Protective Tariff was to Protect those 
who need it, and those who need it 
most are not the great enterprises 
with vast capital and great buildings. 

Would Make Foreign Competition Difficult. 

All through this discussion, as I 
have heard it on both sides of the' 
Chamber, my mind has criticised that 
comparison and has been making in- 
quiries all the time. The figures I 
have been making all the time have 
been applied to the small manufac- 
turer, the small merchant, the small 
producer, because, when you come to 
the last analysis, they are the sub- 
jects in the contemplation of the fa- 
thers of the Republic when they es- 
tablished this doctrine of Protection. 

But I would buy not one dollar of 
the surplus of other nations if I could 
avoid it. I would only do it when the 
home product was insufficient. I would 
rather trust the comfort and the des- 
tiny and the prosperity of the Amer- 
ic?in people to cornpetltlon within our 



own Nation and between our own citi- 
zens than to have it at the mercy of 
competition with foreign countries and 
foreign conditions.' I would make it 
very difl!icult for the foreign producer 
to enter our household and take a seat 
at the table of Republican prosperity. 

Where the $135,000,000 In Wages Is Dis- 
tributed. 

Mr. President, I have attempted to 
present this question from the prac- 
tical side of the woolgrower, and that 
means the market that the woolgrower 
makes. Where do you suppose the 
$135,000,000 in wages paid in this coun- 
try in this industry is distributed? It 
buys your cotton from the South; it 
buys your wheat from the North and 
your barley from Minnesota. Those 
wages are distributed throughout the 
entire business world in this country. 
They do not go abroad to purchase 
foreign articles. Suppose the indus- 
try was destroyed. To what field 
would this labor go for employment? 
Would you wipe it out? Would you 
wipe out the $15,000,000 worth of sheep 
product in Idaho? If you reduce the 
duty on wool, you will wipe it out to 
some extent, if not entirely. 

I am speaking for the consumers 
who consume your wheat while they 
are raising our sheep. I am speaking 
of the consumers who consume the 
product of everj'- State in the Union 
while they are thus engaged. I am 
speaking of the merchant and the 
manufacturer who because of the em- 
ployment of these men have a market 
that they would not otherwise have. 
You take a cent a day from them and 
you lose a cent a day out of the vol- 
ume of j'our business. You take 11 
cents, or anj' other number of cents, 
off the duty on wool, and j'ou lower 
the fence of Protection and increase 
the danger of competition at the ex- 
pense of American labor. 

Seven Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars 
Invested in the Sheep Industry. 

There is invested in the sheep In- 
dustry of the United States more than 
a hundred million dollars. Where 
would that capital find investment — 
in what field? It would be withdrawn 
or lost in either event at the expense 
of the business and commerce of the 
world. What income would tal^e th? 



318 



HEYBURN. WAKREN. McCUMBER. 



place of this? What field of industry 
would offer employment to these men? 
I am appalled when I find any number 
of American people willing even to 
contemplate the withdrawal of oppor- 
tunity from any other number of the 
people. The prosperity of this coun- 
try is because of the opportunity of- 
fered to them. That is the only func- 
tion or purpose of government as ap- 
plied to the individual. It is oppor- 
tunity. It is the Republican party that 
has given the American people the op- 
portunity to engage in profitable en- 
terprise; it is the Republican party, by 
the exclusion of the outside world, 
that has given the people of the Unit- 
ed States the opportunity to build up 
the great riches and the great enter- 
prises of this country. 

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, if I 
understood the Senator from Idaho 
correctly, I think he misquoted the 
amount invested in the sheep industry. 
He spoke of it as being $100,000,000. 

Mr, HEYBURN. I said more than 
$100,000,000. 

Mr. WARREN. It is about $750,000,- 
000. A hundred million dollars w®uld 
be less than $2 a head for the sheep, 
without allowing anything for the 
ranches and other property. 

Mr. HEYBURN. I did not intend to 
include those things. I was merely 
referring to the sheep industry. That 
represents an investment between 
ninety and one hundred million dol- 
lars. Of course, that does not include 
the capital invested in the great enter- 
prises that grow out of it and are 
connected with it. 

Mr. WARREN. The sheep alone, if 
sold on the market to-day, would 
bring considerably more than the 
amount stated. 

Mr. HEYBURN. Yes; I suppose they 
would, if they were all marketed. I 
did not intend to include the cost of 
the land, the buildings, the factories, 
and the tonnage that is paid to build 
and maintain railroads. Those figures 
would soar into almost unbelievable 
sums. 



Ruinous Effects of Free Wool Under 
a Democratic Tariff. 

From the Congressional Record of June 8, 
1909. 
PORTER J, McCUMBER, of North 



Dakota. Why should anyone, regard- 
less of his politics, seek to take a 
chance of striking down even the Pro- 
tection of a cent? I hope that the ex- 
isting law in regard to the Tariff upon 
these subjects will not be disturbed 
one iota, because I believe you will 
have to pay dollar for dollar for every 
dollar that you take from it. 

Mr. President, a system or a theory 
that has been tried in government and 
found successful in its application 
should never be disturbed, even be- 
cause a very large number of people 
think they could do better. There is 
always some one who thinks he could 
improve on existing conditions; there 
are people ever ready to criticise 
others; but I have observed in life 
that, if they get an opportunity to sub- 
stitute their ideas, conditions are rare- 
ly, if ever, improved. 

Mr. President, I know something 
about the conditions in the sheep in- 
dustrj' for the four years prior to 
1897, I am not going to take up any 
time in elucidating this subject, but 
will give one concrete incident. About 
the year 1895 or 1896 I know of a 
flock of sheep of some 4,000 in num- 
ber sold for a dollar and a quarter a 
head. They were all full-grown sheep. 
Those sheep to-day would bring a 
price of $5 a head, or nearly five times 
as much. During the four j'-ears pre- 
ceding 1897 I have seen the ware- 
houses in the western part of my 
State loaded with wool that was not 
worth the price of the freight to the 
Eastern market. That represented the 
general condition during those four 
^'ears. 

They Lost Enormously. 

Mr. President, the people of the 
State of North Dakota and all of the 
western section lost enormously dur- 
ing those years. They have been mak- 
ing up those losses in the last ten 
years, but I do not think with all of 
the profits they have made that they 
have entirely recouped the losses for 
that particular period. 

I am not going into the subject of 
what constituted the real cause. It 
may be that we were frightened; it 
may be that the Wilson-Gorman law 
had nothing to do with it, that it was 
just lack of confidence; but I can give 
another concrete incident in relation to 
how that lack of confidence worked 



McClMUKlt. SMOOT. DOLLIVIOK. WAUUEN. CARTER. 



310 



with some of us. In 1892 I, with some 
other people, organized a sheep com- 
pany. We incorporated along toward 
the fall of that year. We then thought 
that we had better wait until after 
the election before we either pur- 
chased the sheep or the lands that we 
had in contemplation. We- waited un- 
til after the election. It did not go 
as we expected and hoped it would 
go; and that corporation was dis- 
solved. We dropped the project. That 
is one instance in my life when my 
foresight of conditions that would en- 
sue was absolutely correct. So noth- 
ing ever came of that organization. 



Enormous Imports of Shoddy in the 
Free Wool Period. 

From tJie Congressional Record of June lo, 
igog. 

REED SMOOT, of Utah. The Sen- 
ator from Iowa, as I understand his 
position, is in favor of Protecting the 
woolgrower. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Surely. 

Mr. SMOOT. Then, Mr. President, I 
want to call his attention to the fact 
that if you lower the rates upon top 
waste, .'blubbing waste, and roving 
wa.'^te, every pound of that waste that 
enters this country will take the place 
of so many pounds of American wool, 
and you might just as well have no 
duty upon the greased wool itself if 
you are going to take it off the roving 
waste, the top waste, and the slubbing 
waste. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I do not propose to 
take it off. I propose to reduce it so 
that those who produce it will also 
have a little mercy in selling it. That 
is all I am talking about. 

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, will 
the Senator allow me? 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Certainly. 

Mr. WARREN. I think the Senator 
.^■aid he would be satisfied if there was 
wool enough here to buy a suit of 
clothes for every man once a year. 

lAIr. DOLLIVER. Yes. 

Mr. WARREN. They are raising 
that amount of wool, and more, of 
clean, new, pure wool. Now, as to this 
matter of rags and its effect upon 
wool. The Senator will remember the 
Wilson-Gorman law of 1894, and he 
will probably remember it was not es- 
pecially intended lo Protect the sheep- 



man or the wool manufacturer. That 
bill gave free wool, and yet. Mr. Pres- 
ident, they put 15 per cent ad valorem 
upon shoddy and other wastes. They 
were careful enough and thoughtful 
enough, even when attacking the wool- 
grower and making his product free, to 
Protect in some measure the consumer 
by putting a duty upon wastes and 
upon shoddy. 

But, even with that duty upon 
wastes and shoddy, and even w^ith 
"wool free, the importations increased 
over 2,000 per cent in one year after 
the passage of the law of 1894. We 
were importing annually in rags and 
shoddy something like a quarter mil- 
lion pounds, and before the end of the 
first year in which that law prevailed 
we were importing at the rate of over 
17,000,000 pounds per year, and this, 
too, with the 15 per cent ad valorem on 
shoddy and with wool free. 



Sheep Flocks Are Increasing Enor- 
mously Under Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of June lo, 
jQog. 

THOMAS H. CARTER, of Montana. 
Under the Tariff of 1883 the domain 
of the American woolgrower was In- 
vaded by foreign competition to such 
an extent that our flocks were, as they 
always are under evil conditions, sent 
to the slaughter. Under the McKinley 
bill, which corrected the defects of the 
law of 1883, the number of sheep and 
the pounds of wool of American origin 
gradually increased. Under the Wilson 
Tariff law our flocks almost disap- 
peared in open competition with the 
world. The cutting down of the flocks 
was cruel, constant, and disastrous to 
the American woolgrower. 

When the Dingley bill was passed 
we observed an immediate return to 
a steady increase, and if this increase 
is continued for the next ten years, we 
will be producing in this country every 
pound of wool required for the cloth- 
ing of the American people. 

We do know that under the present 
law this great industry of supreme 
importance to all this country is pros- 
perous; that our flocks are increasing 
in number; that they have increased 
from about 37,000,000 head of sheep in 
1897 to about 60.000,000 head now; that 
our wool clip has run from something 



S20 



CARTER. DOLLIVER. WARREN. NELSON. 



like 200,000,000 pounds within the last 
ten years up to 311,000,000 pounds an- 
nuallj\ The increase has been healthy 
and continuous under the existing law, 
w^hich we hope to re-enact in the pend- 
ing bill. "With the fate of so many 
people, the fate of this great industry, 
hanging in the balance, I, for one, do 
not propose to cast the whole respon- 
sibility and practically the whole 
power to control this entire matter in 
the hands of any conference commit- 
tee, if I can help it. 



Republicans Have Exaggerated the 
Relation of the Tariff to the Panic 
of 1893. 

From the Congressional Record of June 10, 
1909. 
JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER. If I 
were called upon now, in the calm 
light of twelve years' reflection, to say 
that putting wool on the free list re- 
sulted in closing factories and destroy- 
ing the flocks of the country and ruin- 
ing the business of the country, I 
should hesitate to do it. It is a very 
wise man who can tell what was the 
cause of the industrial depression 
which burst in a panic upon the Unit- 
ed States in all departments of its af- 
fairs in 1893. I have become satisfied 
that we, as Republican partisans, find- 
ing the argument too convenient, have 
exaggerated the relation of the Tariff 
controversy to that great industrial 
crisis. It always was a little difl^cult 
to connect the panic of 1893 with the 
TarifC Act of 1894, in view of the fact 
that the event seemed to precede the 
cause in such a way as to put almost 
/ any ordinary man upon suspicion. So I 

am not going to discuss that question 
except to say that we have already had 
two or three mistakes made in this 
bill by misinterpreting the industrial 
conditions of 1894, 1895, 1896, and 1897. 
My honored friend from Idaho [Mr. 
Heyburn] the other day brought tears 
to my eyes when he was making his 
magnificent plea for putting a duty 
on certain mineral ores, because he 
said under certain Tariffs the mines 
were shut. We ought to know that 
the mines were shut, not because of 
certain particular Tariffs, but because 
the business of the country and of the 
world was long prostrate in the midst 
of financial disaster up to that time 



unapproached in our commercial his- 
tory. While all these things entered 
into it, I do not think that it was 
necessary to attribute all of it to the 
Tariff, and certainly not all the trouble 
that happened to lead and paint and 
the consumption of such merchandise 
to the little change that had been ef- 
fected in Tariff schedules some years 
before. And so the closing of these 
factories and the falling off in the de- 
mand for sheep and a thousand things 
entered into it. 

He is not a wise man in the interpre- 
tation of statistics or commercial and 
industrial history who attributes to 
one thing a result of world-wide .sig- 
nificance, to the production of which a 
thousand causes, some of them too ob- 
scure even to observe, operated over 
a long period of time. 



Every Time the Tariff on Wool Has 
Been Lowered the Result Has Been 
Disastrous. 

From the Congressional Record of June JO, 
1909. 

FRANCIS E. WARREN, of Wyo- 
ming. The Senator from Minnesota 
surely does not want to do the Western 
sheep man an injustice. There was a 
time when the Western sheep grower 
could take his flock of sheep and go 
out on the government domain. I 
want to assure the Senator now that 
for every sheep there is in Wyoming — 
and I think I can speak for Montana 
as well — there is an investment of 
from ?10 to $15 in land, fences, reser- 
voirs, and ditches, in machinery and 
hay and feed, and so forth; that is. 
there is a standing investment of 
from $10 to $15 for every sheep. Then 
comes the expense of running them. 
The public range as such Is a thing of 
the past. 

The Senator from Minnesota says 
that the wool in his State does not 
bring the amount that wool in the 
West does; that he is discriminated 
against. I do not know that Minne- 
sota wools are given as such, but T 
assume that they would be given in 
the class of Michigan and Wisconsin 
wools. Am I right about that, I ask 
the Senator from Minnesota? 

Mr. NELSON. I can not say as to 
Michigan wools, but I should think 



WARREN. DOLLIVER. 



321 



they might be classed with Wisconsin 
wools. 

Mr. WARREN. The wools of Michi- 
gan and Wisconsin are to-day bringin.c: 
50 per cent more than the wools from 
the West, pound for pound. 

Too Many Revisions of the Wool Schedule 

The Senator talks about revision and 
says the wool schedule is an idol; that 
it never has been revised, and that it 
should now be revised. Mr. President, 
that is what has been the matter. The 
subject of wool and woolens has been 
revised and revised over and over 
again. More than twenty times it has 
been revised. That is the trouble. All 
these revisions have brought out a re- 
sult, and that result is, of course, the 
ultimate success or nonsuccess of rais- 
ing wool on the one hand and of man- 
ufacturing woolens on the other. 

I am here to say that with all the 
twenty-odd Tariff bills that have cov- 
ered wool and woolens, the only time 
when there has been success has been 
when the laws of 1864, 1867, 1890, and 
1897 have been closely adhered to. 
Every time the rates have been low- 
ered the result has been disastrous. 
For instance, in 1883 the woolman was 
not attacked upon the surface, but the 
manufacturer was attacked. Hence 
our wool went down in price and our 
sheep went to the slaughter; and at 
the end of a very few years we had 
lost 18 per cent of our sheep, our man- 
ufactories were largely closed, and we 
were bringing in three or four times 
as much woolen goods from foreign 
countries as before, and bringing in, 
of course, much less unmanufactured 
wool. 

The Woolgrower Simply Asks a Chance to 
Live. 

He asks a chance to supply this 
country with all the clothing that it 
needs; and until the time comes when 
|ie can do that, he asks that such wool 
as may be brought in here shall be in 
the natural condition, as near as pos- 
sible, so that the labor of making that 
wool into goods shall all be performed 
In this country and this country shall 
get the benefit of it. You may place a 
barrel of water on that table where 
the reporters are working and drive 
the head in solid and drive the bung 
In solid until you think it is water- 
tight, but if there is a gimlet hole on 



tlie other side, even if not seen, it will 
drain the entire vessel. 

So if you open a place In this sched- 
ule on noil.s, and there are a dozen 
otlier, yes, two dozen other products — 
and when I say "products" I mean 
various stages of wool from the 
sheep's back to the cloth — that could 
be named, you reduce those duties and 
your importations all follow on the 
basis of the price that it costs to get 
it in as scoured wool. 

So that we have had plenty of re- 
vision; we have had revision up and 
we have had revision down; we have 
had the duty on wool considerably 
higher than it is in the present Tariff; 
we have had the duty on woolen man- 
ufactures lower; we have had wool 
lower; we have been up and down; we 
have been from free wool up to 12 or 
13 or 14 cents a pound; and we have 
arrived at that stage when, enlight- 
ened by experience, we know that, tak- 
ing the duty as it is, with business 
adjusted to it, we can proceed so that 
the woolgrower and the manufacturer 
can both be successful; but undertake 
to revise it, and, with the diversity of 
opinion, it is manifest on its face that 
it can not be done at this juncture. 

How Much Does the Tariff Add to a Suit 
of Clothes? 

Theories, of course, may sound good 
or bad, but it comes down to a simple, 
practical business proposition — how 
much does the Tariff add to a man's 
suit of clothes or the cloth from which 
it is made? 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I think I have 
heard that argument. That depends 
upon the suit of clothes. 

Mr. WARREN. It is very small. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. Yes. 

Mr. WARREN. And you talk about 
this malevolent Tariff and this 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I did not say 
"malevolent Tariff;" I said that a 
Tariff so framed as to have a malevo- 
lent countenance, although the pur- 
pose of it was benevolent and helpful 
and it ought to present such an ap- 
pearance to the community. 

Mr. WARREN. The Senator, dressed 
as well as he Is, probably has not 3 
pounds of wool upon his person. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I am very thankful 
for that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WARREN. I thought so. If a 



S22 



WARREN. DOLLIVER. GALLINGER. 



possible $1.33 Protective Tariff is too 
much to be levied upon a suit of 
clothes in order that we may employ 
In this country, as we do, a million 
people — families and all — in the raising 
of wool and hundreds of thousands 
more in the manufacturing of wool, 
rather than Import alt our cloths, then 
the Senator's judgment and mine differ. 

Speaking of cloth, the cloth in the 
suit of clothes which I have on now 
cost a trifle over $4, and I submit that 
the cloth is good enough to wear even 
in the august presence of this Senate. 
I ask the Senator if I am not right. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. We will all 
testify to that. 

. Mr. DOLLIVER. Let it be said that 
the Senator does not require a very 
elaborate suit of clothes to present an 
impressive appearance in the Senate. 
[Laughter.] 

The Amount of Wool in a Suit of Clotfies. 

Mr. WARREN. The amount of wool 
In the suit of clothes I have on weighs 
less than 3 pounds. The cloth in it 
cost — and it is the best kind I could 
get; it is all wool, and there is no 
flock or mungo or waste in it — a little 
over $4. The making of the suit was 
$30, and the findings used cost $12.50; 
so that the suit of clothes as It hangs 
upon me now cost over $40, and yet 
the cloth, for which I paid the regular 
mill price, cost but a trifle over $4. 
When you talk about a malevolent 
Tariff and ta-lk about adding to the 
price for the workingman 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I hope my friend 
will not allow that to go into the Rec- 
ord. I have not said anything about a 
"malevolent Tariff." 

Mr. WARREN. Perhaps I misunder- 
stood the Senator; if so, I withdraw it. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. I was talking about 
a Tariff that had some disfigurement 
of its countenance. 

Mr. WARREN. The Senator surely 
spoke of the enormity of the Tariff on 
wool and woolens. He will not with- 
draw that. 

Mr. DOLLIVER. No; I really intend 
to illustrate it 

Mr. WARREN. I am illustrating it 
In my way, and I hope the Senator 
will Illustrate it in his. If the Senator 
will figure out just how much the suf- 
fering consumer, who wears a suit of 
clothes like the one to which I have 
referred, pays in order to employ all 



the men along the line, from the time 
the raw wool comes in here until the 
cloth is made into a garment, I think 
he will find that the Tariff on wool is 
a very small factor. 

Will It Pay to Reduce the Tariff on Cheap 
Substitutes for Wool? 

In extending the remarks that I 
made about the cheap clothing, I want 
to make this observation: It takes 
about the same labor to make a suit 
of clothing of very cheap goods that 
it takes to make a good suit; but, Mr. 
President, the poor suit of clothes 
made from shoddy, and so forth, may 
not give one-tenth of the wear that a 
good article gives. 

I have here some samples of cloth. 
The mill price is on each one of them. 
They are about as handsome worsteds 
as you would care to see. They run 
from less than $1 to $1.12% a yard. 
They are all wool; they are 56 Inches 
wide; and it takes a little over 3 j'^ards 
to make a single suit. If you buy a 
whole piece and take it to a tailor, It 
takes just about 3 yards to each suit 
If it is made up into ready-made 
clothing. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Are they Ameri- 
can cloths? 

Mr. WARREN. These are American 
cloths. When you have got worsteds, 
about the best that are made and dou- 
ble-width, of whfch it takes 3 or 3% 
yards to make a suit of clothes, a suit 
of clothes made from it will last a 
couple of seasons, perhaps. Is it not 
to the interest of the poor man, we 
will say, to make up a fabric that will 
cost him a dollar or two less for the 
cloth, as the making up costs the 
same? Will it pay to reduce the Tariff 
upon the cheaper material, upon the 
substitutes, no matter what the per- 
centage is? I am not afraid of putting 
100 per cent upon something that is 
not desirable, upon something as to^ 
which we would have the thanks of 
every consumer if we should shut it 
out entirely. 

Why talk about reducing the cost of 
cloth by reducing the Tariff upon 
cheap articles, when cloth like this 
can be bought for a little over a dollar 
a yard? It only takes to-day about 
3 yards to make up a suit. What is 
the use of bringing in a lot of cloth 
that may only be one-fifth wool and 



WARREN. CARTER. OWEN. GALLINGER. 



323 



the balance cotton or shoddy or, for 
that matter, any other substitute? We 
are already Protecting the working- 
man in this country who Is making the 
cloth, and we are also Protecting his 
back and body by so providing that, 
instead of being swindled with a lot of 
cheap cloth, which dissolves when he 
goes out in the rain, he may have a 
first-class fabric costing a little over 
|3 for cloth enough for a first-class 
suit of clothes? 



The Country Has Prospered Under 
the Operations of the Tariff on 
Wool. 

From the Congressional Record of June lo, 
1909. 

THOMAS H. CARTER, of Montana. 
Mr. President, I was one of the audi- 
tors of the Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. LaFoIlette] last night, and heard 
him remark that the cost to the man- 
ufacturer of agricultural implements 
had increased, as far as steel products 
were concerned, over 100 per cent since 
the Dingley law went into operation. 
I could have assisted him somewhat on 
that in another illustration. The cost 
of wool has increased during the oper- 
ation of the Dingley law 260 per cent, 
and measured by the price of wool to- 
day it has increased 275 per cent. The 
increase in the cost of the raw ma- 
terial was the difference between the 
conditions, doubtless, to w^hich the Sen- 
ator refers and conditions that have 
come to pass under the present law. 

Mr. OWEN. I do not know whether 
or not the Senator from Montana in- 
tends to be humorous, but I should 
like him to make an answer to my 
question. 

Mr. CARTER. I should like to know 
what the Senator from Okla.homa re- 
fers to specifically. I undoubtedly as- 
sume that the Senator has in his mind 
some peculiar phase of industrial life, 
where a particular by-product, or some 
article, is produced at 15 cents, for in- 
stance, and that the duty, according 
to his method of calculation of the 
matter, amounts to what — 60 per cent? 

Mr. OWEN. To 160 per cent. 

Mr. CARTER. To 160 per cent; or 
the duty, for instance, on wool at 11 
cents. 

Mr. OWEN. The Senator evidently 
did not hear my question. 



Mr. CARTER. I wanted to say to 
the Senator that the duty on wool, as 
the price stood with us In 1897, is now 
in the neighborhood of 200 per cent, 
and yet it is a perfectly fair duty and 
the country has prospered under its 
operations. In the case doubtless In 
the mind of the Senator the applica- 
tion of a duty of 100 per cent Instead 
of 60 per cent would, by Its fruits, 
justify the levy. 

Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I under- 
stand the Senator from Montana, in 
fixing the rates on the paragraph in 
question, not to be guided by the dif- 
ference in the cost of production at 
home and abroad at all? 

Markets Have Been Highest When Con- 
trolled by Foreigners. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, the 
highest markets this country has ever 
been inflicted with, so far as the con- 
sumer is concerned, have been the 
markets when controlled by the for- 
eign manufacturer and jobber. The 
Senator from Oklahoma well knows 
that when we shipped In iron rails 
here of English manufacture we paid 
$130 a ton for them and more. 

Mr. GALLINGER. We paid $170 a 
ton at one time. 

Mr. CARTER. Yes; at one time we 
paid $170 a ton. We did not manufac- 
ture a single steel rail In this coun- 
try. To-day, under this "oppressive 
Tariff" to which the Senator refers, 
we are buying the best steel rails man- 
ufactured in the world for about 15 
per cent of the cost of the old Iron 
rails. 

Mr. President, In the production of a 
blanket the Senator wishes to make the 
comparison with the last man who 
touches the blanket In the factory. In 
order to estimate the cost of produc- 
tion it is necessary to go back to the 
sheep herder on the plains. That 
sheep herder In our competing country 
in South Africa receives $3.66 a month, 
while out on the plains in this country 
he receives $40 a month. Down In 
South Africa he receives a sack of corn 
and a sheep to board him for a month, 
while out In our country he must have 
as good a bill of fare as they give in 
the ordinary hotel In Washington, or 
he will not stay by the job. These 
differences from the beginning must 
be computed and considered, In order 
to ascertain the elements of qost, 



324 



BACON. CARTER. OWEN. ALDRICH. 



The Cost of Maintaining the American 
Standard of Living. 

Mr. BACON. Does the Senator from 
Montana think that, in order that the 
sheep herders of Montana shall be 
furnished with board on the scale of a 
Washington hotel, the price of wool 
should be raised to all the consumers 
of the United States, so that that pur- 
pose may be effected? 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, If you 
eliminate the sheep herder of the coun- 
try altogether and cut out the 311,000,- 
000 pounds of wool we contribute to 
the factories of the country, you will 
pay more for your wool than you are 
paying for it to-day. 

Mr. BACON. But the Senator from 
Montana does not deem it wise to an- 
swer that question yes or no. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, the 
Senator from Georgia proposes to set- 
tle a great, far-reaching economic 
question with the answer "yes" or 
"no." That, I think, is one of the ele- 
mentary difficulties with the Senator's 
school of political economy in dealing 
with these questions. Each matter is 
taken in an isolated state, without any 
reference whatever to the surrounding 
conditions and circumstances; for in- 
stance, the standard of living, the 
standard of civilization, the education 
of the people, the manner of feeding 
and clothing them In this country, we 
think ought to be maintained. The 
maJntenance of the standard, however, 
embraces certain costs in every avenue 
of life and endeavor which do not ap- 
ply to the rice-eating millions of 
China; yet, if the Senator's theorj^ 
should be carried into effect, the cotton 
of Georgia and South Carolina, in- 
stead of being manufactured in that 
country into merchantable shape, 
would be shipped to China, where the 
labor determines the element of cost 
to the best possible advantage of any- 
where in the world. 

The Labor Cost of li/iaterials. 

Mr. OWEN. NoAV, Mr. President, 
coming back to my question to the 
Senator from Rhode Island, he advised 
us that the labor cost of materials in 
the United States ran from 80 to 90 
per cent. I call his attention to Car- 
roll D. Wright's Table No. 430, on 
woolen yarns: 



No. JfSO. — Woolen yarn: United States; 
1897-98; unit, 1 pound; No. 1 yarn. 

Per cent 
Amount, of total. 
Cost of labor in transform- 
ing materials $0.0260 5.44 

Cost of materials and all 

other items except labor. .4522 94.56 



Total cost 



.4782 100.00 



That does not correspond with the 
View of the Senator from Rhode Is- 
land as to 80 per cent being the labor 
cost, and I should like to have him 
explain it. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, the 
Senator from Oklahoma entirely mis- 
apprehended my statement. I will re- 
peat it for him. I said the cost of 
every material and of every product is 
from 80 to 90 per cent labor, I care not 
what it is — I mean in the last analy- 
sis. In making that computation, you 
have to commence, of course, with the 
ore in the ground, with the elemental 
unit of production, w^hatever it may be. 
Everything beyond that is cost of la- 
bor. That is the proposition that I 
make; and I think the Senator will 
have great difficulty in arriving at any 
other conclusion if he Investigates the 
subject carefully, as I am sure he will. 

Erroneous ideas in Computing Foreign 
Labor Cost. 

I will repeat what I said the other 
day. If the Senator had been familiar 
with Tariff discussions, he would have 
been aware of the fact that this ques- 
tion of labor cost has always been in- 
jected and occupied a great deal of 
space in such discussions. 

I want to say to him now that the 
labor cost at any single stage in this 
long process of manufacture has noth- 
ing whatever to do ■v^th duties, and 
can not be made to have. For ex- 
ample, take a jackknlfe. Jackknives 
are made abroad largely by farming 
out the different operations to people 
engaged in one particular process. For 
instance, one party might be grinding 
the blade, and it might cost a cent on 
that jackknife in one country and half 
a cent in another. That has nothing 
to do with the duties on jackknives. 
We are not dealing with a single part 
of or one process in tliis long series of 
operations any more than we are in 
yarns. It costs to pack yarns into 
boxes, for instance, a fraction of 1 per 
cent. Are you going to regulate the 



ALDRICH. PENROSE. 



325 



duty upon the cost of packing? Cer- 
tainly not. It costs something- to run 
the wool through the different pro- 
cesses, from one to another. Are you 
going to take one of them and talk 
about the labor cost involved? 

The whole scheme is ridiculous. It 
does not get anywhere practically. 
What we want to compare is the total 
cost of production in one country and 
the other and equalize conditions on 
the total cost of production; and that 
total cost of production, in the last 
analysis, as I have stated, and I will 
repeat it, is based upon the cost of 
labor. If labor costs 50 per cent more 
in this country than it does in another 
country, or double what it costs in an- 
other country, that relative cost of pro- 
duction in the two countries is gov- 
erned entirely by the scale of wages 
all through the production and all 
through every part of the life of the 
nation. If you pay in Washington $3 
a day for a policeman and they pay $1 
in London, that difference of $2, or $1, 
or whatever it is, appears In addi- 
tional taxes. It appears in the scale 
of living. It appears in the ultimate 
cost of production for every article; 
and the Senator will get back, I think, 
in the end to the proposition which I 
made the other day, that the ultimate 
cost of production of every article is 
90 per cent labor; and if we live on a 
higher scale here, paying higher 
wages, we certainly, in the compara- 
tive cost of production, have to take 
all the wage scales of the United 
States into consideration. That is my 
answer to the Senator. . . . 

Would Be an Entire Revolution in the 
Wool Tariff Duties. 

The amendment of the Senator from 
Iowa contains two changes from the 
paragraph in existing law and as re- 
ported from the Finance Committee. 
First, it proposes to assess the duties 
upon the wool contained in these ar- 
ticles, which is an entire revolution 
and destruction of the wool Tariff du- 
ties. If we are going to- assess the 
duties upon wool contained in these 
different articles, we might as well 
abolish the wool schedule entirely. 

The second proposition of the Sen- 
ator from Iowa Is that no duty shall 
be assessed at over 100 per cent ad 
valorem. This amendment has been al- 



ways offered whenever the wool 
schedule has been before Congress for 
consideration. Our friends upon the 
other side have always placed great 
reliance upon a proposition of this 
kind. 

The duties upon wool sometimes In 
the nature of things amount to much 
more than 100 per cent ad valorem. 
That is inevitable. As I stated the 
other night, in suggestions upon an- 
other subject, with a specific duty on 
first-class wool of 11 cents, and going 
up gradually for washed and scoured 
wools, m.any tirnes the duty levied for 
the Protection of the American wool- 
grower is more than 100 per cent ad 
valorem, and in cases like that, of 
course, it is necessary that there 
should be a compensatory duty which 
is greater than that which is imposed 
upon the wool. There are very few 
cases of this kind in any event, but if 
we should undertake to adopt this pro- 
posed paragraph as it stands woolen 
goods would be imported into the 
United States instead of wool. 

Improper Adjustments in 1883 and 1894. 

We have had experience of that kind 
several times in our history. In 1883 
and in 1894, by an improper adjustment 
between the wools and woolens, all the 
wools were imported into the United 
States in the form of wool goods, and 
the woolgrowers of the country were 
relegated to a condition which I will 
not undertake to describe, but which 
the Senator from Montana [Mr. Carter] 
described this morning in very elo- 
quent terms. 

No; this amendment is only another 
disguise for breaking down the wool 
and woolen paragraphs by the use of 
terms which look well upon their face, 
but which are in effect destructive of 
the wool Tariff. 



Old Trick of Free=Traders Fore- 
shadowed in Senator Dolliver's 
Speech. 

From the Congressional Record of June lo, 
1909. 
BOIES PENROSE, of Pennsylvania. 
I ask unanimous consent to have the 
Secretary read the resolutions of the 
Manufacturers' Club of Philadelphia, 
which I send to the desk. 



326 



PENROSE. McCUMBER. 



The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 
Secretary "will read, as requested, there 
being- no objection. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

Manufacturers' Club of Philadelphia, 

Office of the President. 

Whereas the existing Tariff law relat- 
ing to wool and woolens, in conjunction 
with the general prosperity maintained 
by the Protective system, has so devel- 
oped woolgrowing and woolen manufac- 
turing that we now produce about three- 
fourths of the wool and 95 per cent of the 
cloth required for clothing the American 
people, which clothing they buy at very 
moderate prices, as is evidenced by the 
fact that they wear more and better 
clothing than any other people; and 

Whereas the old trick of the Free- 
Traders of endeavoring to separate the 
woolgrower from the manufacturer by 
changing the equitable arrangement of 
Schedule K in such manner as to admit 
into this market foreign products of wool 
at less than relative duties placed on 
raw wool, thus destroying the woolgrow- 
ers' market, is foreshadowed in the re- 
cent speech of Senator Dolliver of Iowa; 
Therefore 

Resolved by the board of directors of 
the Manufacturers' Club of Philadelphia, 
That we call upon all Senators and Rep- 
resentatives in Congress who are loyal to 
the Republican party and its platform to 
stand unswervingly for the wool and 
woolens schedule as it now is in the 
Senate bill. 

N. T. Folwell, President, 

[Seal.] Elmer P. Weisel, Secretary. 



With Proper Protection We Will Be 
Able to Furnish All the Wool That 
Is Necessary in This Country. 

From the Congressional Record of June lo, 
1909. 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North 
Dakota. Is the duty upon the wool it- 
self too high for reasonable Protec- 
tion to the American farmer or wool- 
grower? I went into that subject the 
other day, and I think I showed con- 
clusively that it was not too high; that 
we have not yet recouped the losses 
that we incurred during the time when 
it was lessened; that we had to almost 
go out of the business of sheep rais- 
ing in my State. 

Believing that the farmer's Protec- 
tion is not too high, we are then 
brought face to face with the question, 
Can we reduce the manufacturer's Pro- 
tection without injuring the farmer? 
Every farmer in this country who 
raises sheep understands that the 



value of his product is always deter- 
mined by the amount of wool raised In 
this country and the amount imported 
into this country. The less the im- 
ports the greater the demand for and 
the value of his wool product, and the 
greater the imports the less the de- 
mand and value. 

Therefore, if we give the farmer ade- 
quate Protection, so that, we will say, 
there is imported into this country 
only $135,000,000 worth of wool, and 
if we take away the differential from 
the manufacturer, so that instead of 
importing wool he imports $200,000,000 
of woolen goods, does not the farmer 
suffer the same result as though we 
had lowered the Tariff upon his own 
products and allowed more wool to 
come in? 

In other words, if we Introduce $200,- 
000,000 worth more of woolen goods, 
we introduce a proportionately greater 
amount of wool, which is in those 
goods, into the country and thereby 
depress the market for the American 
woolgrower. 

It Is Just as Bad for the Farmer Whether 
the Wool Comes in Raw or in Woolen 
Fabrics ; 

There is just so much more wool 
in the country to depress the price. 

Mr. President, it would be just as 
reasonable for me to stand here and 
insist that while the Senate should 
give the farmer a Protection of 30 
cents a bushel upon his wheat, at the 
same time we should take away the 
Protection upon the flour and let the 
flour come in and take the place of his 
wheat. I certainly would fail very 
materially to perform my duty if I did 
not insist upon a duty on the flour 
which Avould be as much greater than 
that upon the wheat as will measure 
the difference between the value of the 
wheat and the value of the flour. I 
can not excuse myself in attempting to 
represent the farmer honestly and 
falrlj' if I excite his hope that I will 
keep out the Canadian wheat by rea- 
son of the^ 30-cent-per-bushel barrier 
and at the same time allow the Ca- 
nadian wheat to come in in the shape 
of flour. What I have said with refer- 
ence to wheat would also apply to the 
case of flax if I should cut off the 
duty upon linseed oil, the product of 
the flax. 



McCUMBER. WARREN. 



32': 



The Farmer Needs Both Duties. 

What I wish to make clear to the 
Senate and to those farmers who may- 
read any portion of these debates is 
that the farmer's Protection depends 
upon the Protection to both the raw- 
wool and to the woolen textile trade 
In the United States. Not only from 
concrete reasoning upon the subject, 
but from past experiences, he can see 
that his product has gone up or gone 
down just in proportion as the pros- 
perity of the manufacturer has gone 
up or down. Then taking these aver- 
ages — and I have shown conclusively 
by the records that the average Pro- 
tection is only 67 per cent for the 
manufacturer and that he pays 42.85 
per cent added cost for the wool that 
is imported and goes into his manu- 
factured fabrics, over and above what 
he would pay if wool were free, and 
that the difference between the Amer- 
ican cost and the British cost is such 
as to render it necessary to have that 
much of a spread between the Tariff 
on the wool and the Tariff on the 
cloth manufactured from it — I feel that 
I am Protecting his interest only w-hen 
I vote for a duty, on an average, I say, 
that will represent this difference be- 
tween the cost of his manufactured 
article in the foreign country and in 
this country. 

No Reason Why We Should Not Produce 
All the Wool Needed. 

Mr. President, there Is just one 
other thought in connection with this 
matter that I wish to present. There 
Is no reason In the world why we 
should not produce In the United 
States all the wool that Is necessary 
to manufacture in the United States 
the same as we produce all the wheat 
in the United States that Is necessary 
to manufacture into the flour In the 
United States. Why do we not do it? 
We do not do It simply because the 
woolen Industry has not paid. When- 
ever we can so Protect the woolen 
Industry, both the farmer and the man- 
ufacturer In the United States, that 
the woolen Industry on the farm will 
pay more for the labor that Is em- 
ployed in It than the wheat produced 
by the same labor, the farmers will go 
Into raising more sheep and less wheat. 
and the result will be that we will be 



able to furnish all the wool that Is 
necessary for use in this country. 



Half a Million Sheep Farmers Urge 
Adequate Protection for Wool. 

From the Congressional Record of June lo, 
1909. 

FRANCIS E. WARREN, of Wyo- 
ming. Mr, President, the Senator who 
has just yielded the floor [Mr. LaFol- 
lette] introduced some matter earlier 
in the evening that referred to the 
woolgrowers, and so forth. I have 
here a telegram just received from 
the National Wool Growers' Associa- 
tion, and as it contains but a few 
lines, I ask that it be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the 
absence of objection, the Secretary will 
read as requested. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

Cheyenne, Wyo., June 9, 1909. 
Gen. Charles H. Grosvenor, 

Washington, D. C. : 
The National Woolgrowers' Association, 
representing over 500,000 sheep farmers 
of the United States, requests that you 
transmit to each Member of the United 
States Senate the earnest request that he 
support Schedule K duties on wool and 
woolens, as reported by the Senate 
Finance Committee. Any revision of 
these duties downward will destroy an in- 
dustry employing more than 3,000,000 
hands in growing and manufacturing 
wool. 
The National Woolgrowers' Association, 
Geo. S. Walker, Secretary. 

Mr. WARREN. The question I 
wished to ask the Senator from Iowa 
was whether the Senator could cite us 
to a continuation of successes on the 
part of either manufacturers or wool- 
growers that would be proof that 
either one of those avocations have 
been overprofitable, taking them from 
the foundation of the business in this 
country to the present time or for any 
considerable length of time. Back in 
the Senator's remarks where he was 
dealing with proflt the question was 
apropos, but it has been deflected by 
the interruptions. 

Not Many Rich Men in the Sheep Busi- 
ness. 

I merely want to make this observa- 
tion, and I will not ask the Senator to 
answer it unless he desires. I think 
you may start at the Atlantic and go 
to the Pacific, and from the Canadian 
line to Mexico, and you will hunt in 



828 



WARREN. ALDRICH. 



vain to find any over-rich men or cor- 
poration, any multimillionaires who 
have been engaged in the sheep busi- 
ness. I think you may start follow- 
ing the same lines, and you will find 
very few, if any, multimillionaires who 
made their money in the manufac- 
ture of woolens. There have been 
years when the inanufacturers of 
woolens have made large profits, and 
there have been years when they made 
losses, and submitted the figures to 
show it. I submitted the figures a day 
or two ago regarding the largest 
woolen manufacturing company in this 
country, and it is a manufacturer of 
both carded woolens and worsted. The 
statement shows that this corporation 
has never paid dividends upon any of 
its stock, except 7 per cent per annum 
upon its preferred. The company has 
had at times, covering the ten years 
or so of its existence, a surplus vary- 
ing from nothing to perhaps 15 per 
cent of its capital. It has taken from 
or added to this each year, according 
to %vhether the business made losses or 
gains. For the year 1908 it had to 
take over $1,200,000 from the surplus 
in order to meet the 7 per cent upon 
its preferred stock, and the remaining 
surplus is doubtless less than what 
ought to be charged out as deprecia- 
tion of plant. 

Heavy Losses Under the Wilson-Gorman 
Law. 

Now we will turn from the manu- 
facturer to the sheep grower, and I 
will speak of that which I know, be- 
cause I was present at the board that 
made the necessary entries in the 
books, to distribute dividends or as- 
sess losses. In one case it was a 
profit and in the other a large deficit. 
The samfe people, interested together 
in sheep growing and doing business 
in the same way, under the law of 
1867, made, in a five years' run, 180 
per cent, and divided that among those 
interested in the business. 

The same people, with two or three 
more added at a later date, and doing 
business in the same way, only on a 
larger scale, wrote off their books in 
one entry six hundred and fifty-eight 
thousand and some dollars, as a loss 
occurring in less than four years be- 
cause of the Wilson-Gorman law. On 
the average that concern has not made 



over 6 per cent per annum upon Its 
money from the time it started to the 
present date, and yet it could be truth- 
fully reported as having made thirty- 
odd per cent per annum not for one 
year alone, but for three or four years 
successively in one particular period. 

I look at general results. If this 
country were filled with multimillion- 
aires, if we had a v/ealthy class of 
that description grown up out of the 
manufacture of woolens, it would 
show that It had been a profitable 
business, an overprofitable business, 
but I have not seen any figures and I 
can not find any, and I do not believe 
any Senator can submit any that will 
show that that Industry as a whole, 
covering a period of years, has made 
anything more than a reasonable In- 
terest upon the capital invested. 



Proposed Reductions Would Put the 
Wool Growers of the United States 
at the Mercy of Their Competitors 
Abroad. 

From the Congressional Record of June ll, 
1909. 
NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. Mr. President, the suggestion 
of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Cum- 
mins] was more or less to the effect 
that the Committee on Finance has 
not properly considered this schedule. 
He also suggested that the amend- 
ments which have been offered were 
in the nature of reform amendments, 
I do not intend to take the time of 
the Senate to discuss but one of them, 
and that the amendment upon which 
the Senate has voted providing for 
the imposition of a duty of 45 per 
cent ad valorem upon wools of the 
first and second class. I say — and I 
think I will be able to show — that 
this amendment is in violation of the 
platform declarations of both political 
parties and of every political party; 
that it violates the theory upon which 
the Protective policy is based; and it 
also violates the theory upon which 
Free-Trade or Tariff reform is based. 
The effect of this amendment upon 
wools of the first class Is to prac- 
tically reduce the duties one-half. The 
effect of the amendment as It applies 
to wools of the second class Is to In- 
crease the duties considerably, at least 



ALDRICH. 



329 



2 cents a pound upon the basis of the 
Importations of last year. 

The Protective theory, as we have 
always supposed and as it has always 
been voted for In the Senate, is based 
on the Idea that the duties should be 
equivalent to the difference in the cost 
of production in this country and 
abroad. The duty as proposed by the 
amendment to which I now refer, so 
far as it applies to first-class wools, 
puts the woolgrowers of the United 
States at the mercy of their com- 
petitors abroad. 

A few years ago foreign wools of 
the first class were offered for sale in 
this country and sold at a price of 
from 10 to 11 cents. Forty-five per 
cent of that is from 4V^ to 5 cents a 
pound. Instead of 11 cents, as Im- 
posed by the law and imposed by the 
committee amendment — 414 to 5 cents 
a pound at a time when the woolgrow- 
ers of the United States were threat- 
ened with destruction on account of 
the incursions of foreign wools. At 
such a time as that, if we were to 
have a change in the rates, it ought 
to be an Increase, instead of a de- 
crease. 

Would Reduce One-Half in the Name of 
Reform. 

The amendment takes this duty of 
11 cents a pound, in other words, a 
specific duty, such as has been Im- 
posed by all Protective Tariffs from 
time immemorial, and reduces it in the 
name of reform one-half. 

Senators may say that is a very ex- 
ceptional case. Within a few years 
cross-breed wools have been quoted in 
foreign markets at 9 cents a pound. 
By this amendment the duties would 
be reduced from 11 cents a pound to 
between 4 and 5 cents. I have on my 
desk the present quotations of for- 
eign wools in the last number of the 
London "Elconomist," which has just 
reached here, showing that the aver- 
age price of grease wools from the 
Cape is from 7 3-4 to 8 pence per 
pound, or in the neighborhood of 15 or 
16 cents. Forty-five per cent of that 
would be a duty of from 6 to 7 cents 
a pound, instead of 11 cents a pound. 

These wools do not come to the 
United States in competition with our 
wools now. Why? Because Congress 
in its wisdom has erected a barrier to 



keep them out. None of them are 
now imported. For whose benefit? 
For the benefit of the woolgrowers of 
the United States. 

These Cape wools, as I have said, 
are quoted at from 7 3-4 to 8 pence. 
I have before me also a statement of 
the price of South American wools 
for the December sales of 1907, the 
only figures available. The sales 
averaged from 4 3-4 pence to 8 pence, 
and the highest price of the whole lot 
was 8 pence per pound, or less than 
16 cents. I use round figures for Il- 
lustration. That would mean a duty 
of 7 cents a pound, instead of 11 cents. 
The duties on all the wools upon 
which it is the policy of Congress, and 
always has been the policy of Con- 
gress, to impose Protective duties are 
proposed to be reduced nearly 50 per 
cent by this amendment, which has 
received the votes of Senators upon 
both sides of the Chamber. 

How Are They Going to Explain Their 
Votes? 

I should like to know what my 
friend from Iowa [Mr. Cummins] and 
my friend from Indiana [Mr. Bever- 
Idge] are going to say in their Pro- 
tective speeches in this country. How 
are they going to explain their votes 
in reducing the Protection which is 
afforded the woolgrowers of the Unit- 
ed States from 40 to 50 per cent by 
their action in this matter? 

My votes on this schedule and upon 
this bill certainly will need no ex- 
planation to myself, and I am quite 
sure that they will need no explana- 
tion to my constituents, to whom I 
am directly responsible; but I say 
again that those Senators who are 
Protectionists, who have been espe- 
cially insistent that the farmers of 
this country should be Protected by 
Tariff duties, and who have been ap- 
pealing to the farmers who have 
sheep, who produce wool, and who are 
entitled to Protection in every com- 
munity of the land — that those Sena- 
tors, for the purpose of trying to 
bring about a reform upon the TarlfC 
bill which is now under consideration 
and to secure revision according to 
their ideas, are found voting here for 
reducing the duties practically one- 
half upon wool which comes in direct 
competition with the woolgrowers of 



330 



ALDRICH. WARREN. 



the United States. The Senators can 
explain that vote as they please to 
their constituents or to anybody else; 
but I am stating- the facts as to what 
their votes have done, and they will 
not be able to explain that. 

Reform Ought Not to Be Carried on in 
That Way. 

I am suggesting to our friends upon 
this side of the Chamber who voted 
for this amendment that reform of a 
Protective Tariff ought not to be car- 
ried on in that way. We are here 
bound by every obligation of our plat- 
form, by every obligation that we have 
as Senators loyal to our party and to 
its principles, loyal to the principle of 
Protection — we are bound, in my judg- 
ment, to resist all efforts of this kind, 
even if they are made in the name of 
reform, and if, as they think, they are 
pledged to vote for a downward re- 
vision. This is not the spot, gentle- 
men, for a downward revision by 
which you will take away from the 
woolgrowers of the United States one- 
half the Protection which the policy 
of our party and which every enact- 
ment for Protection, has always in- 
cluded. I say, g-entlemen, it is easy to 
carry this talk of reform and of 
downward revision to an extreme 
which will destroy the confidence of 
the people of the United States that 
we intend to maintain the Protective 
policy at all. 



The Retail Price of Cloth and Cloth- 
ing Does Not Follow the Rate of 
Tariff. 

From the Congressional Record of June 12, 
jQog. 

FRANCIS E. WARREN, of Wyo- 
ming. The woolgrower gets his 
greatest benefit when the Tariff is so 
adjusted that little or no manufac- 
tured goods come in as unmanufac- 
tured wool. 

Of course the ultrafashionable tailor 
and the ultrafashionable wearer will 
continue to demand a small importa- 
tion of woolens of foreign manufac- 
ture. "It's so English, y'know," or "so 
French," or "so German." But that 
species of American is daily dimin- 
ishing, and a few single suit patterns 
are now sufficient to supply the de- 



mand, whereas whole pieces or bolts 
of cloth were formerly necessary. 

The retail price of cloths and cloth- 
ing in this country need not depend 
upon, and does not follow, the rate of 
Tariff on cloths, because the compe- 
tition in our woolen manufacturing 
and woolen trade in this country has 
always been keen and there is every 
prospect that it always will be. 

The retail price of woolen fabrics 
to the consumer is that of the cost of 
the wool, the cost of the labor, and a 
reasonable profit to manufacturer and 
dealer, which can not be much if any 
more — and is often less — than the or- 
dinary commercial rate of interest on 
money invested. 

We have had more than a score, if I 
have counted aright, of Tariff laws 
regarding wool and woolens. The 
rate has been up and down; and so 
far as the sheepman, the woolgrower, 
is concerned, he has been buffeted 
about by these changes in the Tariff. 
He has come to know that what af- 
fects the manufacturer affects the 
woolgrower, because the woolgrower 
in this country has no valuable mar- 
ket except this market; and If the 
manufacturers by legislation are 
placed upon a footing where woolen 
cloths come into this country to com- 
pete with wool grown here, indeed, 
the woolgrower in this country Is 
without a market. 

The woolgrower asks to have a 
Tariff that shall not be tinkered with 
up and down continually; that it shall 
be "live and let live;" that it shall be 
one under which the manufacturer 
can succeed; and then that the addi- 
tional wool needed in this country 
shall come in as far as possible In the 
condition of raw wool instead of man- 
ufactured goods. You may say that It 
does not affect the woolgrower 
whether wool comes in or cloths come 
in. The woolgrower, if he is an 
American citizen of spirit — and he 
usually is — desires to have at every 
step the greatest employment for 
American labor. 

In the woolgrowing industry there 
are not less than a million people, 
farmers and all, interested. I will not 
undertake to say how many are In- 
terested in woolen manufacturing, but 
right Iiere in the neighboring city of 
Philadelphia there are, if I am cor- 



\ 



WARREN. 



331 



rectly informed, more than 75,000 
operatives in woolen mills. Those 
75,000 operatives, with their families, 
make a very considerable population 
in that city and in this country. If 
you grow wool here or bring in as 
wool what you need, those men are all 
employed and their families all sup- 
ported from that industry. If you 
bring in the cloth, those 75,000 men 
are out of work, and they naturally 
crowd into other vocations, and there- 
fore the men in -the other vocations 
are crowded out, wages go down, and 
many men and women are without 
employment. 

Was There an Agreement? 

It has been said with a sneer that 
the woolen manufacturers and the 
woolgrowers have made some agree- 
ment. Well, in all sincerity, I ask 
whether that is a proper thing, or 
whether they ought to have each other 
by the throat? What good can come 
of the woolgrower and the woolen 
manufacturer fighting each other? It 
has been tried. There have been 
many years in the past when the man- 
ufacturers and the woolgrowers were 
at variance; but it has never trans- 
pired that either industry was fully 
successful, except when there was 
some reasonable element of harmony. 

The interests of the Grower and Manu- 
facturer Are Mutual 

in the desire that all the needed 
imported wool material may come in in 
an unmanufactured state. Hence, the 
advantage of Tariff must be so laid. 
The farmer must receive sufficient 
Protection to keep his flocks from 
decreasing. The manufacturers must 
have high enough duties on cloths so 
that, after absorbing the home prod- 
uct, they can draw upon other coun- 
tries for raw material and be able to 
compete successfully with the foreign 
manufacturer, who is struggling for 
this American market — the best in the 
world with reference to the consump- 
tion of wool. 

Decrease of 20 Per Cent in Three Years 
of Free Wool. 

Now, following up this subject a lit- 
tle further, we had in this country in 
1894, 45,048,017 sheep, valued at $89.- 
186,110; in 1897, 36,818,643 sheep, val- 



ued at $67,020,942, showing a still 
further decrease of over 8,250,000, or 
nearly 20 per cent, in the number of 
sheep, and a decrease of over $22,- 
000,000, or 20 per cent, in the value in 
the three short years intervening be- 
tween the Tariff law of 1894 and that 
of 1897. 

And this much for the Wilson-Gor- 
man Tariff act of 1894. 

In fact, Mr. President, the numbers 
and values of sheep have moved up 
and down with favorable or unfavor- 
able Tariff legislation much the same 
as the mercury in the thermometer 
moves with the change of weather, the 
one being about as sensitive as the 
other. 

Without Protection the Industry Can Not 
Be Increased. 

No doubt it is thought by many of 
the growers that the present Tariff 
rates and the rates proposed by the 
Senate committee are not sufficient 
and adequate; but I have believed, and 
I still believe, that, with the rates as 
proposed, although not as perfect as 
might be desired, the industry can be 
sustained, the numbers of sheep in- 
creased, and the quality of our wool 
greatly improved. 

But there is one thing certain — with- 
out Protection, or with less Protec- 
tion than that proposed in this meas- 
ure by the amendments of the Sen- 
ate, we can not increase the industry 
of woolgrowing, and we shall go 
down hill in the production of wool 
and mutton, as we have done hereto- 
fore, when the Tariff has been insuffi- 
cient upon either wool or manufac- 
tures of wool. The grower is affected 
by either one or both. If the manu- 
facturer's business is made unprofit- 
able the grower can not produce and 
dispose of his product with profit. 

Now, all of this being true, we ask 
the question: Is the industry of grow- 
ing mutton and wool of value to this 
Nation? Is the United States ready 
to allow that industry to perish, or to 
diminish into unimportance, and then 
take its chances in peace or war of 
purchasing all the product required for 
our home manufactures or bringing 
into the country the manufactured 
product necessary for this great peo- 
ple, who consume a fifth of all the 
wool grown in the world? 



332 



WARREN. ALDRICH. 



No Trust in Handling Woof. 

There has never been and can not 
be a successful trust or combination 
for handling wool. It can not be 
grraded and sold upon grades and spec- 
ulated in like wheat or cotton, be- 
cause there is a certain individual- 
ity about wool, and it has so many 
requisites; there may be so many 
excellencies or deficiencies and so 
many contingencies, that every lot 
must be sold upon its own merits, 
varying greatly in different seasons 
from the same locations and flocks. It 
is true that in grading and sorting 
houses the fleeces of A, B, C, and D, 
can be assorted into different grades 
by actually handling each fleece of 
wool, but a combination of the clips 
of the same growers for the following 
year might present a different quality 
and a different condition, owing to 
many contingencies, such as good or 
bad weather, drought or flood, suffi- 
ciency or shortage of feed, method of 
shearing and caring for, and so forth. 

As to the manufacturing of wool, it 
Is true that one concern has been 
made up of 28 different companies; not 
a holding company handling the 28 
different corporations, but one com- 
pany which holds in fee simple all of 
this number excepting one or two, 
in which it holds all of the stock. 
This concern has been doing busi- 
ness some ten years, and prob- 
ably never has reached a point of 
manufacturing 20 per cent of the out- 
put of the woolen mills of the coun- 
try, and 8 per cent to 15 per cent 
would be nearer the mark, the aver- 
age being about 12 per cent. 

I do not want to enter at this time 
Into the question of trusts and great 
combinations, but if there is any line 
of business on this earth that is a 
hard one for the trusts to get into and 
manipulate and control, it is the manu- 
facture of wool. 

IVo Solicitude Needed for the Fasftionabfe 
Taifors. 

If fashionable tailors want to have 
upon their shelves, as they do to-day, 
a lot of cloths for gentlemen who 
wish to pay any price asked for a 
suit and do not want any other man 
In the country to have a suit like it; 
If tailors want to send abroad and 
order a certain number of pieces, each 



for one suit of clothes, and put them 
upon their shelves and charge fabu- 
lous prices for making them, that is 
a matter between the fastidious wear- 
ers and the tailors. We need not care 
how much they pay for such clothing 
if we are able to furnish, in the mean- 
time, all necessary clothing for the 
poor and rich alike, and leave no ne- 
cessity for bringing in woven material 
in woolens. We certainly Injure no 
workingman, no consumer, regardless 
of what that Tariff may be, because 
the relation of capital to labor and 
the relation of the industries to cash- 
seeking, interest-paying Investments, 
have always made, and always will 
make, in this industry, a competition 
that will render it impossible for the 
cloth manufacturer to get more for 
his cloth on an average than what 
will just about pay the interest upon 
the capital invested. 



When They Want to Say Bad Things 
About ■ Protection They Begin by 
Saying "I Am a Protectionist." 

From the Congressional Record of June iz, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. The universality of the sup- 
port of the Protective policy in the 
United States is nowhere better evi- 
denced than when a man in under- 
taking to criticise the doctrine an- 
nounces himself in the first place as a 
Republican and a Protectionist. All 
through this discussion, and the things 
that are collateral to it, that has been 
the main statement of everybody who 
wants to say any bad things or any 
disagreeable things about either the 
policy or the party. He prefaces his 
statement by saying "I am a Repub- 
lican and I am a Protectionist." I 
have no doubt this man is as far from 
a Protectionist as any man can be. 
His statement shows that very plainly. 

It is not Incumbent upon me, I sug- 
gest to the Senator from Georgia, to 
read all the newspaper articles or lis- 
ten to all the statements that are made 
throughout the United States with 
reference to the wickedness of Pro- 
tection as a policy or the high rates 
that are Imposed by this or any other 
legislation. We are here to discuss, I 
assume, in a practical way the terms 
of the bill which is now under con- 



ALDRICH. NELSON. DIXON. 



333 



sideration and to try to ascertain 
whether it is fair and proper in its 
provisions, havingf in view all the time 
the fact that we intend to pass a Pro- 
tective measure. If the Senator from 
Georgia has any idea that, so far as I 
am concerned, we intend ever to pay 
any attention to statements and arti- 
cles like that he has just read, whether 
they are in the press or are state- 
ments made in this Chamber or out 
of it, he is very much mistaken. 



Wealthy Art Buyers Can Afford to 
Contribute Something to the Needs 
of the Government. 

From the Congressional Record of June 12, 
1909. 

KNUTE NELSON, of Minnesota. I 
want to say to the Senator from Mon- 
tana that I have noticed in the papers 
— and I think it is a general idea 
among the public — that there are cer- 
tain big millionaires in New York 
City and other places who are pur- 
chasing a lot of foreign paintings and 
works of art, and they are very anx- 
ious to get their collections in free. It 
is a very laudable enterprise, and the 
only view that strikes nie in the mat- 
ter is, in the first place, that those 
men who are so well supplied with 
funds and have become so wealthy, 
who import these works of art, paint- 
ings, can afford to contribute some- 
thing to the needs of the Government. 
In the next place, the more you import 
of these, the more you enter into com- 
petition with our own artists. 

There Is another fact. I do not want 
to be held up as a barbarian from 
the wild West. If there is anything 
I enjoy it is a fine painting. I never 
go to New York but that I go up to 
Central Park and visit that fine art 
gallery. I am reminded of an inci- 
dent that occurred some years ago. 
I was going up one of the corridors 
of the museum, and on the wall there 
was a fine lot of paintings of the 
Flemish school of the seventeenth cen- 
tury — barnyard scenes; elegant; in the 
finest colors; lifelike. A stout old 
lady, with a black silk dress on, and 
her daughter were there. They had 
more jewelry and diamonds than my 
whole farm and possessions in Minne- 
sota are worth; and as they were go- 



ing up the old lady got her eye on that 
picture and she said, "Julia, do you 
notice how that pig curls his ears." 
That was the one thing which struck 
her in that important picture, while I, 
a rude barbarian from the wild West, 
stood there and admired that picture 
as much as any picture in that noble 
art gallery. 

I make these remarks because I do 
not want the Senator from Massachu- 
setts, or any one else, to understand 
that I am opposed to art. But I be- 
lieve that the men who procure paint- 
ings abroad and pay high prices for 
them, which Is to their credit 

Mr. GALLINGER. And hold them 
in storage. 

Mr. NELSON. And hold them in 
storage waiting for this legislation — 
I think, in view of our depleted reve- 
nues, in view of the importance of 
having sufficient funds to run this 
Government, and I am anxious in that 
respect to aid the Senator from Rhode 
Island, we ought to make these gen- 
tlemen pay a small duty when they 
bring in these articles. 



Tariff on Art Is a Tariff on the Rich 
Who Can Afford to Pay. 

From the Congressional Record of June 12, 
1909. 
JOSEPH M. DIXON, of Montana. 
The beautiful pictures that Senators 
draw of the multi-millionaire pork 
packers and copper kings who go to 
Europe and collect great galleries of 
paintings and works of bronze and of 
marble is nice. We are delighted to 
have great multi-millionaires, when 
they are through with works of art in 
their lifetime, turn them into some 
public gallery for the instruction and 
edification of the public. But the 
truth is, Mr. President, that not a sin- 
gle picture, that not a single collec- 
tion of works of art that has been 
mentioned on this floor has been kept 
out by the duty. The small duty here- 
tofore placed on these things has not 
In any way deterred the multi-million- 
aires from bringing them into this 
country, and the continuation of the 
present duty will in no way on earth 
in the future prevent these same men, 
who are ready to spend millions of 
dollars in the purchase of these arti- 



334 



DIXON. CUMMINS. HEYBURN. 



cles, from paying the small duty when 
brought into the home country. 

But that is not the crux of the situ- 
ation. Where one painting or one 
work "in bronze, marble, terra cotta, 
parian, pottery or porcelain, artistic 
antiquities, and objects of art of orna- 
mental character," eventually finds its 
way into a public museum, the great 
wealthy classes of the country will im- 
port a hundred pieces of art for their 
own use in their own homes. The people 
who buy these articles of luxury may 
do it in isolated cases for a public 
museum at the end of their lives, but 
they are bought for the purpose of 
decorating in great and artistic pro- 
fusion and wealth their own palaces 
at home. Ninety-nine articles are im- 
ported for that purpose where one 
goes into a public museum. 

For that reason I do not see how 
we can defend the Tariff bill which 
we are now passing with an average 
duty of 40 per cent on the ordinary 
things of life, when we absolutely 
throw down the bars to the men who 
can afford to pay, who will pay, and 
•^ho will not import a single piece of 
antique furniture or high-priced 
bronze or high-priced marble more 
than they would do if these things 
still remained on the dutiable list. 



Who Is to Determine the Margin of 
Profit Which Our Producers Should 
Have? 

From the Congressional Record of June 14, 
1909. 
ALBERT B. CUMMINS, of Iowa. We 
have been treating our Tariff and our 
platform at times as though the meas- 
ure of Protection was simply the dif- 
ference between wages, or the effi- 
ciency of labor, if you please, at home 
and abroad. That is not the test. It 
never has been and it never ought to 
be. Our test of Protection is a duty 
that will enable the domestic manu- 
facturer to meet his rival in the mar- 
kets of his own country successfully 
and carry on with a fair profit the en- 
terprise in which he is engaged. ' That 
measure of duty involves a considera- 
tion, not only of the difference be- 
tween the cost of labor at home and 
abroad, but it involves a consideration 
of the difference between the cost of 



materials at home and abroad; and It 
is just as essential to Protect our 
manufacturers against the added cost 
of material as it is to Protect them 
against an added cost, of labor, if they 
are to meet their competitors in our 
markets successfully. 

Mr. HEYBURN. I should like to ask 
a question. I think I will first take 
occasion to say that the presentation 
of the question by the Senator from 
Iowa this morning is the clearest pres- 
entation of his position, and the posi- 
tion of his party and those who con- 
trol it that has been made. How 
much of a margin would you give the 
American manufacturer in the field of 
the production of wool and in the 
field of the manufacture over and 
above the even balance between home 
and abroad? That is the interesting 
question. 

Mr. CUMMINS. That margin of bal- 
ance can not be defined. It is better 
determined by experience than by the 
attempt to express it in a definite per- 
centage. 

Mr. HEYBURN. We would have to 
do it. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Precisely; and It is, 
therefore, a matter of sound judgment. 
It must be remembered, however, that 
the foreign manufacturer must make 
profit as well as the domestic manu- 
facturer. The end to be sought, after 
all, is the meeting of the two manu- 
facturers in our markets, with an ad- 
vantage on the side of our manufac- 
turer. That is the rule which should 
be applied. It is the rule which I 
recognize and have attempted to en- 
force in every vote I have given In 
this Chamber and in every word I 
have attempted to express upon the 
subject. 

The Producer Should Fix the Margin of 
Profit. 

Mr. HEYBURN. Mr. President, that 
brings us to the question as to who I3 
to determine what is the margin of 
profit which our producer, whether he 
produces the raw material or the man- 
ufactured product, should have as - 
against the foreign competitor, and 
who should fix it. I contend that the 
producer should fix it. There has been 
a contention here that we should fix It 
through the medium of the duty. 
Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, therein 



CUMMINS. HEYBURN. 



335 



lies the difference between the Sen- 
ator from Idaho and myself. I say it 
is the duty of the Senate to fix that 
difference. It is inseparable from the 
duty that is involved in the making of 
a Tariff law. We must derive our in- 
formation from every source from 
which we can obtain it. It is not fair 
to accept the statement of the domes- 
tic manufacturer Avithout allowance. 
It is not fair to accept the statement 
of one who desires to import goods 
into our country without allowance. 
We must try that question precisely 
as we are compelled to try all ques- 
tions, and give to it our most intelli- 
gent, dispassionate, and impartial con- 
sideration, and reach a judgment upon 
it giving, I agree, the benefit of the 
doubt to our own manufacturers. 

Foreign Compeiition as a Regulator of 
Domestic Prices. 

Mr. HEYBURN. Would not such a 
bill be correctly entitled "A bill to 
Protect the foreign competitor against 
the American producer?" 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, on the 
contrary, it would be a bill named 
just as this one is named — a bill to 
give to our manufacturers our mar- 
ket, provided those manufacturers are 
willing to occupy it with a fair and 
reasonable profit upon the ventures in 
which they are engaged; but if they 
are not willing to take our market 
w^ithout advancing their profits beyond 
a fair and reasonable allowance upon 
the capital which they have invested 
in their enterprises, then they have 
no right to occupy it, and it is the 
highest patriotism to invite somebody 
else to occupy it if our own manu- 
facturers and our own producers will 
not do this simple justice to those who 
must use and consume their products. 

A Great Many Things Tfiat Are Not Pro- 
tected. 

There are a great many things that 
are not Protected, as I view the situ- 
ation I know that my friend, the 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Mc- 
Cumber], does not agree with me in 
respect to these things; but I do not 
believe that we in Iowa receive any 
direct benefit for the 400,000,000 bush- 
els of corn that we raise everj'^ year; 
I do not believe that we receive any 
direct benefit from the duty on the 



8,000,000 or 10,000,000 hogs that we 
market every year; I do not believe 
that of the $700,000,000 of agricultural 
products that we pour every year into 
the channels of trade Protection ad- 
vances the price of a tithe of them. 

I want Senators to remember that 
I come from a State that probably 
puts more in value into the channels 
of trade every year than any other 
State of the Union in agricultural 
products. We will this year supply 
the people of the United States and 
the people of the world with a prod- 
uct that will surpass in value $700,- 
000,000, and it is idle for even any 
enthusiast to assert that the price of 
these products is directly affected by 
the Protective Tariff. 

Where Protection Helps the Agricultural 
Producer. 

We are benefited, however— and I 
want, in passing, to acknowledge the 
benefit, for I am just as firm a believer 
in the policy of saving our own mar- 
kets as one who may live in New Eng- 
land, in New York, or in California — 
we are benefited because Protection 
creates a great, prosperous multitude 
of men and women and children in 
America who use our products, who 
are able to buy them, and who are able 
to pay for them. If, Instead of export- 
ing from the United States some- 
thing like $800,000,000 in a year of 
agricultural products, we were com- 
pelled to export practically all, or a 
very large proportion of the things 
which we produce of that kind, then 
the price in America would be very 
much less than it is now for all of 
them. I want no man to be able to 
accuse me of any infidelity or want of 
allegiance to the doctrine of Protec- 
tion simply because we are not di- 
rectly and immediately advantaged by 
the Protective law. But here is a 
point where Protection does help the 
agricultural producer. It adds just 
that mucb to the value, to the price, 
of his yearly output of wool. 

Mr. HEYBURN. Before passing to 
it, is it not well to inquire whether 
or not you would place the English 
merchant with his cloth on an equal 
footing with the American merchant? 
Would you not give the American mer- 
chant a margin of profit which should 
not be fixed by the English merchant? 



336 



CUMMINS. HEYBURN. WARREN. ALDRICH. 



Mr. CUMMINS. Certainly. 

Would Handicap the Foreign Competitor. 

Mr. HEYBURN. I understood the 
Senator's statement to be that they 
were to be started evenly under the 
law. I would not start them evenly, 
and I would not allow the foreign 
merchant to fix the price or the profit 
of the American merchant. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I am getting them 
ready for a start. I have not yet 
started them. I will start them pres- 
ently. You will see we have handi- 
capped the foreign competitor. 

There has been a very great deal 
of inaccurate talk on this floor with 
regard to the effect of Tariff duties, 
both on the other side of the Cham- 
ber and upon this side of the Cham- 
ber. It is not true, as we all know, 
with regard to a great many of the 
articles upon which a duty is laid 
that the price Is enhanced or ad- 
vanced by the measure of the duty. 
That is perfectly evident everywhere. 
It is, on the contrary, just as evident 
that there are some things upon 
which, if a duty is imposed, the price 
Is increased by just the amount of 
the duty. 

There is no general rule that can be 
applied to the case. For instance, 
suppose that you put a duty of a dol- 
lar a pound on cotton, it would not 
raise the price of cotton one hair's 
breadth. Why? Because we produce 
more cotton than we consume, we ex- 
port a large part of it, and the price 
is fixed in the markets of the world. 
With regard to wool, we produce much 
less wool than we use. We necessarily 
import a large part of that which we 
consume. Therefore the price of w^ool 
is fixed by the import into the United 
States, and the imported price is in- 
creased by the amount of duty levied 
upon it. 

Mr. WARREN. If the Senator will 
allow me, the same will be as true of 
wool as of cotton when we have ar- 
rived at the same point and have sheep 
enough to furnish a full supply of 
wool. 

An Easy Thing to Destroy a Schedule. 
Mr. ALDRICH. I think the Commit- 
tee on Finance would have no diffi- 
culty in destroying this scliedule. That 
Is not a difficult task at any time. The 
most delicate mechanism, all the crea- 



tions of the human mind and human 
thought, built up, perhaps, as the re- 
sult of ages of study and investigation, 
can be destroyed by a single blow. It 
does not take a sledge hammer to 
destroy the mechanism of a watch; 
it is an easy thing to do. But when 
a man undertakes to produce a watch 
— I am only using that as an illustra- 
tion — he is dealing with a matter 
which requires great skill, infinite pa- 
tience, and great judgment in every 
direction. 

We are approaching this subject, I 
think, with all due deference to the 
Senator from Iowa, from entirely dif- 
ferent standpoints. I am desirous of 
preserving to the American farmer 
a market for his wool in the United 
States. 

Mr. CUMMINS. So am I. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I am in favor of 
preserving to the people engaged in 
the manufacture of wool in the United 
States a market. 

Mr. CUMMINS. So am I. 

Mr. ALDRICH. But I am not will- 
ing to try experiments, and especially 
I am not willing to try any experi- 
ments along the lines of the sugges- 
tions which have been supported by 
the Senator from Iowa on the pend- 
ing proposition. 

Who Are the Dissatisfied Ones? 

And the woolgrowers of the country 
— I make the statement without fear 
of contradiction — are satisfied with the 
present Tariff. The woolen manufac- 
turers, with the exception of one class 
— and their dissatisfaction arises from 
natural conditions, which it is beyond 
the power of this Congress to change 
— are, as a rule, satisfied with this 
schedule. The persons engaged in pro- 
duction, the textile workers of the 
United States, without exception, so 
far as I know, are satisfied with this 
schedule. Who is dissatisfied? Who 
are the men? 

Of course the Senator from Iowa has 
always been a Tariff reformer. I do 
not use the term in an offensive sense, 
but he has been in favor of lower 
duties, all along the line. If he were 
required to reconstruct our Tariff, he 
would do It upon a different basis 
from wliat I would and what I think 
a majority of the Senate w^ould. I do 
not find any fault with that, but I sug- 
gest to him that all these other inter- 



1 



ALDRICH. WARREN. CUMMINS. 



337 



ests and people are satisfied with this 
schedule. It does not necessarily fol- 
low, because he is dissatisfied, and a 
few other Senators are dissatisfied for 
any reason, that we must halt the 
public business and try the impossible 
task of reconstructing- the schedules. 



Wide Difference of Opinion Between 
the Late Senator from Iowa and 
the Present Senator from That 
State. 

From the Congressional Record of June 14, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. I will say to the Senator 
from Iowa, what he probably may not 
be aware of, that the present woolen 
schedule — that is. Schedule K of this 
bill, of the existing- law, of the act 
of 1890 — was prepared more largely at 
the suggestions and under the control 
of the woolgrowers of the United 
States than of the woolen manufac- 
turers or of any other force or power. 
I hope the Senator from Iowa will 
not misunderstand me. I am aware 
that for many years that Senator has 
been carrying on a campaign in his 
own State for lower duties. One rep- 
resentative of that State in this body 
had very much to do not only with 
regard to Schedule K, but the entire 
Tariff legislation here. There was a 
marked, I perhaps might say, without 
being too strong, a wide difference of 
opinion between the late Senator from 
Iowa and the present Senator from 
that State. That difference was fought 
out before the people of Iowa, and 
the Senator from Iowa is now here. 

In regard to the wool schedule, the 
people of Iowa are not particularly 
interested directly in whether the Tar- 
iff on wool is high or low; but we have 
upon this floor ten or twelve Senators 
whose people are directly interested 
in the wool Tariff, and those Senators 
are unanimous and enthusiastic in fa- 
vor of maintaining the existing sched- 
ules. That those Senators represent in 
this matter their constituents, the 
woolgrowers of the country, I think 
the Senator from Iowa will not ven- 
ture to deny. We have a large num- 
ber of other Senators here who are 
Protectionists, who believe in the Pro- 
tectfon on wool; and I shall try to 



voice their sentiments later on in the 
day, when I will show, I think to the 
satisfaction of every Senator, that 
these repeated amendments — every one 
of them — have but one purpose and 
could have but one result, and that 
would be not to reform the wool and 
woolen schedules, but to destroy them. 

Are Receiving Too Much Duty. 

Mr. WARREN. I should like to ask 
the Senator from Iowa a question be- 
fore he leaves the floor. I understand 
his contention to be that the manu- 
facturers are receiving too much com- 
pensatory duty, coupled with a Pro- 
tective duty. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Tliat is what I have 
been driving at for the last hour and 
a half or two hours. 

Mr. WARREN. I do not wonder that 
the Senator follows a line of that kind, 
because I myself followed it for a 
great many years, and there have been 
times, especially in my earlier con- 
sideration of this subject, when I fig- 
ured it very much a;s the Senator fig- 
ures it. But as I grew older and aft- 
er a somewhat active business life, I 
am inclined to judge more and more 
by final results. I think that is the 
safest way. I do not think the matter 
of technicalities enters into it so much 
as does the final result. We know 
what the final result has been to the 
sheepmen. We know that when we 
have had favorable Tariff legislation 
they have succeeded, and when we 
have not had favorable legislation they 
have failed. They have demonstrated 
that if they are Protected they can 
raise in this country every pound of 
wool consumed in this country. 

Wants to See Some Evidence. 

On the other hand, we have been 
hearing of other lines of manufactures. 
We have heard of dividends on sugar. 
We have heard of dividends on oil. 
But I can not find in my investigation 
that the manufacturers of woolens 
have shown more than a reasonable 
profit, more than a reasonable inter- 
est earned; and if the Senator has any 
information, or any Senator has infor- 
mation, which proves that, taking it 
altogether, from first to last, the man- 
ufacturers of woolen goods have be- 
come multi-millionaires or the sheep 
growers have become multi-million- 



S38 



WARREN. CLAPP. LaFOLLETTE. 



aires, tlien 1 am ready to change my 
opinion. 

But 1 want to see some evidence, if 
somebody is getting too much compen- 
satory duty or Protective duty, that, 
after good manag-ement, he has made 
more than the ordinary rate of in- 
terest. 



Exploiting Filipino Cheap Labor in 
Competition with Our Own Anier= 
ican Labor. 

From the Congressional Record of Jtme 14, 
1909. 

MOSES E. CLAPP, of Minnesota. 
The Senator from West Virginia is ab- 
solutely tight. There are two princi- 
ples involved in this Tariff — ^eithef a 
moral question or a question of dollars 
and cents. If it is a question of dol- 
lars and cents, we should collect a 
duty on the Philippine product. If it 
is a moral question, there Carl be no 
compromise on it. If It is the duty of 
the American Republic to let in Philip- 
pine sugar because it is due as a moral 
right to the Filipino, then it is an 
equal duty to let in every pound that 
every poor Filipino may be able to 
produce. The Senator from West Vir- 
ginia is absolutely right. There can 
be no compromise upon this question. 

I do not believe that any such prop- 
osition as that ever passed the scru- 
tiny of that great jurist who to-day 
sits in the executive chair of this Na- 
tion. If so, there is a way to bring 
that approval to the Senate rather 
than the mere say so of some Senator. 
When we had up Cuban reciprocity, we 
were told that somebody had promised 
something to the Cubans, and we must 
maintain that promise. Now it is pro- 
posed to enact this proposition into 
legislation, based upon the theory that 
there are two Filipinos entitled to the 
benefaction of this Republic, and yet 
the one who can get to the market 
first with his 500 tons of sugar is 
benefited and the other is barred out. 
That involves no such proposition as 
should in the last analysis be a solu- 
tion of a moral question or the recog- 
nition of a moral obligation. 

There is one thing more, and then I 
will quit. I did not intend at this 
particular time to talk on this sub- 



ject. For eight years I have stood in 
the Senate, and I have legislated as 
honestly and conscientiously as I knew 
how for what I believed, next to the 
agricultural interest of America to be 
the basis upon which our prosperity 
rests, and that is the Industrial life 
of our country. 

For the last few months this Cham- 
ber has rung- with the exclamations 
of those who wanted to do something 
for American labor, and now it is pro- 
posed to open the Philippine Islands 
to allow men to go there and exploit 
that cheap labor and then bring the 
product here in competition with 
American labor. 

A Senator said this matter has been 
arranged. Have the men who have 
eked out only half an existence in 
riiaking cigars appeared here and con- 
sented to this arrangement? Have the 
independent beet growers who are left 
in this country come here and consent- 
ed to this arrangement? I think not. 

For one, let the consequence be what 
it may, I will not and can not vote for 
a proposition that will bring in com- 
petition with the American laborer the 
product of the laborer of the Philip- 
pine Islands, employed, as he inevi- 
tably will be, not by Filipino capital, 
but by American capital, and exploit- 
ing the product of that cheap labor 
here in our very midst in competition 
with our own American labor. 



Would Displace the Labor of 2,500 
Americans. 

From the Congressional Record of June 14, 
1909. 
ROBERT M. LaFOLLETTE. of Wis- 
consin. Mr. President, the proposition 
to admit 150,000,000 cigars free of duty 
means displacing the labor in the cigar 
factories of this country to the number 
of 2,500 men. There are to-day 12,000 
unemployed cigar makers in the United 
States. I do not believe it is wise or 
just that that army of unemployed 
men shall be Increased by 2,500 men. 
whose labor will be taken from them 
if 1.^0,000,000 cigars are admitted into 
this country from the Philippines free 
of duty. 



LaFOLLETTE. IIEYBUUN. 



839 



"Competition at Home Will Always 
Prevent Monopoly on the Part of 
the Capitalists/* 

From the Congressional Record of June 15, 
1909. 

ROBERT M. LaFOLLETTE, of Wis- 
consin. For more than one hundred 
years the ablest champions of a Pro- 
tective-Tariff system have met the at- 
tack upon it with Hamilton's unan- 
swerable argument, that free competi- 
tion between domestic industries would 
make monopoly impossible. 

Blaine, in his "Twenty Years of 

Congress," makes domestic competition 

the very cornerstone of the Protective 

system. He says: 

Protection in the perfection of its de- 
sign does not invite competition from 
abroad, but is based on the contrary prin- 
ciple, that competition at home will 
always prevent monopoly on the part of 
the capitalists, assure good wages to the 
laboring man, and defend the consumers 
against the evil of extortion. 

You see, Blaine recognized the fact 
that Protection would be vulnerable 
except for the principle invoked by 
Hamilton, that domestic competition 
w^ould prevent monopoly and so pre- 
vent the imposition of extortionate 
rates upon the domestic purchaser of 
the domestic product. 

McKinley Said Monopoly Could Not Sur- 
vive. 

That was the Blaine to whom you, 
Mr. President [the Vice-President in 
the chair], and I, as young men enter- 
ing public life gave heed as an ex- 
pounder of the correct principles of the 
Protective-Tariff policy; so William 
McKinley, a Member of the House of 
Representatives, rising rapidly to the 
leadership of his party as the embodi- 
ment of the Protective-Tariff principle, 
answering the charge that the Tariff 
fosters monopolies, said: 

They — that is monopolies — can not long 
exist with an unrestricted home compe- 
tition such as we have. They feel the 
spur of competition from 37 States, and 
extortion and monopoly can not survive 
the sharp contest among our own capital- 
ists and enterprising citizens. 



••Do You Want Wages Paid to the 
Foreign Miner and Leave Our Own 
Zinc Ore in the Ground? 

From the Congressional Record of June 16, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
Mr. President, that Is the language 
contained in the lead schedule, and 
there is no reason why it is not appro- 1 
priate in the zinc schedule. If it is * 
not appropriate in one, it is not appro- 
priate in the other. We are competing 
against the wage scale of Mexico as 
much in zinc as we are in lead. We 
are competing against exactly the 
same conditions, and we are not ask- 
ing as much by this amendment on 
zinc as was asked on lead, although 
we would be entirely justified in doing 
so. I will undertake to say that had 
there been any necessity of doing so 
at the time that the Dingley law was 
enacted, the same duty would have 
been put upon the zinc contents of 
the ore as was put upon the lead 
contents of the ore, because they were 
then dealing with a clear field; they 
were making a Republican Tariff, and 
not revising one. 

I notice that there is not that out- 
spoken patriotic spirit of Republican- 
ism displayed in revising this Tariff 
that there was in making the existing 
law. They had then, right close in 
their memories, the experience of four 
years of Democratic Tariff. It had 
been a lesson to them in every State 
in the Union, especially in the mining 
States; and when they were looking 
for the right thing to do they were 
not embarrassed by existing condi- 
tions. They were rather aided by the 
comparison between po\serty and pros- 
perity in those sections. That is what 
I am standing for to-day. A new 
condition has arisen demanding the 
same class of relief and assistance as 
existed at the time of the making of 
the Dingley law. 

Why Do Senators Oppose It? 

Mr. President, does anybody sup- 
pose that there would have been a Re- 
publican vote against this amendment 
had it been offered at the time of the 
making of the Dingley bill? No one 
would have been able to give a reason 
for it at all. Why do Senators oppose 
it? Do you want wages paid to the 



340 



HEYBURN. WARNER. 



foreign miner and leave our own zinc 
ore in the ground? What for? On tlie 
ground of the conservation of the nat- 
ural resources of the country? I can 
think of no other ground. Of course 
it would stay there all right. It would 
not rot like timber; it would not burn 
up like forests; and there is no Sena- 
tor here on either side who would for 
a moment, after due consideration of 
this question, say that any one would 
be benefited by leaving this ore in the 
ground and going down into American 
pockets and taking the price of your 
corn or your wheat to buy foreign zinc 
that represented foreign wages and 
foreign Investments. 

Greatest and Best Tariff Law Ever En- 
acted. 

Every presumption here is in favor 
of the sufflciency and the appropriate- 
ness of the existing Tariff law, and I 
"must be shown" before I vote to 
change a single duty now provided for. 
Where new industries have grown up, 
they should be incorporated into the 
scheme of Protection. I am not will- 
ing to join with those who would have 
you believe that at the time of the 
meeting of the Republican party in 
Chicago the country was in bankrupt- 
cy and in poverty. It was not. I 
am not one who will join with those 
who denounce the Dingley Tariff law. 
It was and has been the best and 
greatest Tariff law that ever was en- 
acted, because it had the benefit of the 
experience of the time that had gone 
before, and it was the result of tried 
conditions. 

And that a Republican should stand 
up here and attempt either to apolo- 
gize for it or to denounce it puts me 
upon inquiry as to the condition of his 
mind when he said to the constituents 
who elected him to participate in the 
proceedings of Congress that the Re- 
publican party was entitled to their 
suffrage and that he represented the 
principles of it, and that he would 
stand for them. If there is a man in 
this House or in the other who apolo- 
gizes for the Republican party, he Is 
not worthy to wear the honors that 
the people gave him. 

Tired of Apologies for the Wisdom of tfie 
Republican Party. 

1 am tired of those half-stated and 



often insinuated apologies for the wis- 
dom of the party. 

Mr. President, if you do not deal 
fairly with all the people of the coun- 
try, you will only make the task the 
harder for those of us who participate 
in the political campaigns that result 
in Republican supremacy. If you 
think you can throw this State down 
and this interest down, remember you 
have to pay for it in some States in 
votes, I do not think you will have to 
pay for it in votes in Idaho, because 
the Protective-Tariff system is their 
law and their gospel, and no man can 
ever go into that State and make 
those people believe that it will not 
ultimately prevail. You may shake 
their confidence by slurring over this 
zinc schedule, and we may have to 
explain your action and apologize for 
it, but they will still vote the Repub- 
lican ticket, having faith that the time 
will come when there will be a Re- 
publican party in Congress which will 
know Republicanism and how to apply 
it. 



♦•I Have Yet To Learn that Free Raw 
Material Is a Cardinal Principle of 
Faith of the Republican Party." 

From the Congressional Record of June i6, 
1909. 

WILLIAM WARNER, of Missouri. 
Mr. President, I am reluctant to occu- 
py the time of the Senate even for a 
minute, and I should not do so were it 
not for the deep interest which the 
people of my State have in this ques- 
tion; deeper, I think, than in any 
other schediile in the pending Tariff 
bill, for the reason that in what is 
known as "the Joplin district," com- 
posing portions of Missouri, Kansas, 
Oklahoma, and Arkansas, 70 per cent 
of the spelter which is used in the 
United States is produced. Over 11,000 
men, nearly all Americans, are en- 
gaged there in the mining industry. 
They are among the best paid laborers 
in the world; they are independent la- 
borers; they are home builders, hav- 
ing their permanent residence in the 
mining district. 

This and the importance of the zinc- 
mining industry in my State is enough 
to make me say something. But, Mr. 



WARREN. GUGGENHEIM. 



841 



President, back of that there is a bit 
of sentiment, from the fact that my 
father was a day laborer in the mines 
in Wisconsin, and as a boy I worked 
in and about the mines; and the deep- 
est regret of my life, I think, was 
when, well-nigh three score years ag'o, 
I parted company at the mouth of the 
shaft from the old blind horse that I 
had for two years led in the winters' 
snows and the summers' suns in oper- 
ating the whipsey-derry of a lead 
mine. I have therefore some famil- 
iarity with the mining Industry. 

Justice Should Be Done i(f Every Sect/on. 

And I have been hopeful that jus- 
tice would be done to every section of 
this countrj'^ in the matter of the du- 
ties on zinc. I have believed, and be- 
lieve now, that the Committee on Ways 
and Means of the House of Repre- 
sentatives should have acceded to the 
claims of the miners, and that the 
committee should have given them the 
same Protection that it gave the lead 
industry. The Ways and Means Com- 
mittee, after careful consideration, 
placed the duty on zinc ore at 1 cent 
a pound. The bill giving that Pro- 
tection came over to the Senate. In 
my judgment, the Senate Committee 
on Finance should have reported the 
duty at 1 cent a pound on the zinc 
contents contained in the ore. It may 
be that I am overzealous on behalf 
of the men who work in the mines. 
Yet, while not getting all that I be- 
lieve they should have gotten, I do not 
think any interest has received more 
careful consideration at the hands of 
the committee than has the zinc indus- 
try, taking into consideration even the 
men who are fighting it to-day — the 
oxide-zinc people and the smelters — 
who are here fighting against the 
granting of Protection to the men who 
work in the mines, yet always looking 
for and demanding Protection to their 
own interests. 

Mr. President, I am no better Pro- 
tectionist than many other Republi- 
cans; but, sir, for nearly as long as 
the children of Israel wandered in the 
wilderness I have fought the battles 
of Protection in Missouri against what 
seemed to be a hopeless majority, and 
I have yet to learn that free raw 
material is a cardinal principle of faith 
of the Republican party. 



Lack of Sufficient Protection Would 
Close a Great Many Zinc Proper- 
ties. 

From the Congressional Record of June i6, 
1900. 

SIMON GUGGENHEIM, of Colorado. 
Colorado, as I previously stated, ex- 
cluding the zinc-oxide product of New 
Jersey, is the second largest producer 
of zinc ores in the United States. Hav- 
ing had some personal business experi- 
ence in the Republic of Mexico, resid- 
ing some time there, also having 
mined in that country up to a few 
j-ears ago and knowing the conditions 
prevailing, I trust that the producers 
of the United States will not have to 
longer meet the keen competition of 
the producers in the Republic of Mex- 
ico. 

The Senator from New Jersey has 
made the statement that heretofore 
no duty has been imposed on zinc 
ores. That is true; but it has not been 
necessary to impose a duty on these 
ores up to the present time. 

The zinc-ore shipments began com- 
ing from Mexico, as was stated by the 
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Warner], 
in 1904, reaching a point when, in 1907, 
they amounted for that year to some- 
thing like 110,000 tons. 

From what I know of mining condi- 
tions in Mexico, its producers can just 
as readily ship 250,000 to 300,000 tons 
of ore annually, from that Republic. 
Knowing mining conditions in the 
West, due in part to the higher wages 
we pay the miners in the mining of 
zinc ores, which are the same wages 
paid as in the mining of lead ores, I 
know siich importations would be a 
menace before long and would prob- 
ably close a great many zinc properties 
in the Rocky Mountain mining region 
if we do not impose a duty sufllcient 
at least to Protect the interests of the 
American producer and enable him to 
continue paying the present wage 
schedule, which at the best is not too 
remunerative for the American miner. 

Personally, I should like to have 
seen the rate 1 cent* per pound on all 
grades of zinc ore, but as the Commit- 
tee on Finance have In their wisdom 
seen fit to make a slight reduction 
from the rate fixed by the House, I am 
willing to accept the rate now offered, 
feeling that it will not work any great 



342 



GUGGENHEIM. GALLINGER. SMOOT. 



injury to the mining interests of the 
West. 

The zinc industry in Colorado and 
in the Rocky Mountain section is in 
its infancy. It is not so in Missouri, 
for zinc ores have been mined there 
for a great many years. We were 
obliged to take up the mining of zinc 
ores in Colorado and in the other 
Rocky Mountain States on account of 
the low price of silver. Many silver 
mines have been closed because of 
the low price, which at the present 
time is about 52 cents an ounce, a 
drop of 13 cents in the past two years. 
Now, I ask the Senate not to menace 
our zinc industry, which is in its in- 
fancy, but to give the State and the 
West all the Protection to which they 
are justly entitled. 



Fair Play Demands Fair Protection 
for the American Lithographing In= 
dustries. 

From the Congressional Record of June i6, 
1909. 

JACOB H. GALLINGER, of New 
Hampshire. Mr. President, I simply 
want to say, in a word, that I feel a 
very great interest in the lithograph- 
ing industry, and I trust that the 
substitute the committee has pre- 
pared will take adequate care of that 
industry, which is now greatly imper- 
iled. 

The National Association of Employ- 
ing Lithographers met in this city a 
little over a month ago, and they have 
given some statistics that are quite 
startling to me. They call attention 
to the very thing that the Senator 
from Nebraska suggested. They say: 

The Payne bill, with two exceptions, 
provides a fair measure of Protection to 
the lithographic industry. The Senate 
bill as introduced perpetuates the wrongs 
of the Dingley bill, which almost ruined 
an old industry; fair play demands a fair 
Protection; we plead for it. 

They show that this is an industry 
employing $50,000,000 capital and 20,000 
workmen. In 1899 the imports were 
$799,745; in 190/, $3,968,542; and In 
1908, $4,911,102; showing that in nine 
years the imports have increased al- 
most seven times what they were in 
1899. A great many lithographers, to 
my knowledge, are out of employment 
in this country. We are being flooded 



with German lithographic cards and 
every possible device, furnished to 
our people much cheaper than they 
can be produced in the United States. 

I want, in just a word, to plead the 
cause of these skilled workmen and 
experts, and I hope that the committee 
have given them fair and adequate 
Protection. I presume the committee] 
have undertaken to do that. 

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, answer- 
ing the Senator from New Hampshire 
[Mr. Gallinger], I will say that the 
committee have taken all the demands 
of the lithographers into consideration, 
and had meeting after meeting with 
them. While we could not consistent- 
ly grant all that they demanded, we 
did Anally report, or will report, 
amendments that are acceptable to that 
class of workmen. 



Tariff on Post Cards May Not Please 
the Germans, but It Will Help 
Americans. 

Frotn the Congressional Record of June 17, 

1909. 
. REED SMOOT, of Utah. Mr. Presi- 
dent, in answer to the Senator from 
Kansas, I will state that there are a 
number of changes here in the litho- 
graphic schedule. The labels and flaps 
are the same as the Dingley rate, but 
the bands are about 5 cents a pound 
higher. I explained last night when 
this paragraph was up for discussion 
the reason for that advance. It was 
virtually agreed by the importers 
themselves that the advance on the 
cigar bands is a proper one, but they 
did not desire an advance upon the 
labels and flaps. If the Senator will 
notice, he will see that on the labels 
and flaps we have reduced the House 
rate 5 cents per pound, but have in- 
creased the rate on bands 5 cents per 
pound. The reason of that Is that the 
bands imported used to come in in 
sheets, and a rate was paid upon the 
weight of the sheet. But now they are 
imported with the band cut ready for 
use, and it virtually makes a differ- 
ence of about one-half of the rate 
formerly charged. 

Advance in the Tariff on Post Cards. 

We also have eliminated from the 
paragraph the view cards that used 
to come in under the thickness of not 



SMOOT. DICK. 



543 



exceeding twenty one-thousandths of 
1 inch. We have carried those view 
cards to paragraph 412, and they are 
greatly advanced. At the time of the 
Dingley bill postal view cards were 
unknown in this country, but, as all 
Senators know, that business has 
grown to mammoth proportions. 

The German Importers, under the 
5-cent rate that we now have, virtu- 
ally control this market, as every 
Senator will see from the importations 
of that class of goods. The House 
advanced the rate from 5 to 7 cents 
a pound. The Senate committee have 
now advanced it to 15 cents a pound 
and 25 per cent ad valorem. 

I suppose there is no Senator who 
has not received by mail lately postal 
cards showing views of America; yes, 
views of public buildings in Wash- 
ington, printed on postal cards made 
in Germany. In order to save this 
business the committee have decided 
that the only way of doing it is to 
put a rate of duty of 15 cents a 
pound and 25 per cent ad valorem. 
I will admit that it looks to be a very 
large increase, and it is an increase of 
325 per cent over present law, but 
nothing- short of that, in the opinion 
of the committee, would save the busi- 
ness to the American lithographer. 



Difference in Wages Cost Shows tlie 
Need of Protection for American 
Glass Workers. 

From the Congressional Record of June i;, 
i9og. 
CHARLES DICK, of Ohio. Mr. Pres- 
ident, it is admitted that this business 
Is in a demoralized condition. Large 
numbers of factories are closed. Thou- 
sands of men are out of employment. 
A reduction of the Tariff in this in- 
stance invites importations and re- 
duces the price of the home product. 
The wages of the men engaged in this 
business are fixed by the monthly 
price of the glass itself. It would 
seem to me that if any schedule of 
this bill might be left undisturbed, or 
as now fixed in the law, this is clearly 
one to be so taken, and I hope that 
nothing will add to the disturbance 
of the business, already in a demor- 
alized condition, by changing the rates 



that have So long obtained and to 
which the business has adjusted itself. 

There are 6,700 skilled window-glass 
workers in this country, all of whom 
are members of organized labor, ca- 
pable of producing annually 11,000,000 
50-foot boxes of the sizes and qualities 
required by American consumers. 

This demonstrates the fact that if 
all the skilled American window-glass 
workers were employed a^t their re- 
spective trades in the making of win- 
dow glass a sufRcient number of boxes 
to supply the entire consumption of 
the country could be made in six 
months, thus compelling the forced 
idleness of the workmen during the 
remainder of the year. 

Vast Difference Betweeh American and 
Foreign Wages. 

I submit the comparative wages of 
American and foreign workmen: 

American workmen: Blowers, $120.50 
per month; gatherers, $90.25 per 
month; cutters, $i24 per month; flat- 
teners, $130 per month. Foreign work- 
men (I use the phrase "foreign" as 
referring particularly to the Belgian 
workers, our greatest competitors): 
Skilled workmen — Blowers, $60 to $80 
per place; gatherers, $40 to $50 per 
place; cutters, $28 to $38 each; flat- 
teners, $40 to $60 each. 

In the case of a part of the more 
unskilled labor, the following were 
the wages shown by the figures that 
I was able to obtain: 

Lehr tenders, $48 to $60 per month; 
shove boys, $48 to $60 per month; rol- 
ler boys, $48 per month. Foreign un- 
skilled labor: Lehr tenders, girls, $15 
to $18 per month; shove girls — that Is, 
in place of the boys used in this coun- 
try — $15 to $18 per month; roller car- 
riers, girls, $18 per month. 

In addition, we might add to the 
American unskilled or perhaps semi- 
skilled workmen what we know as the 
"snapper," one to each place, who re- 
ceives an average of $48 per month. 
In Europe they dispense with the serv- 
ices of a snapper. 

The price of American skilled labor 
is determined monthly by the selling 
price for the current month, while the 
price of foreign skilled labor is fixed 
annually. 

To better understand these figures, 
it is necessary to bear in mind the 



344 



DICK. SCOTT. GALLINGER. 



fact that the American blower and 
gatherer work singly, or one to each 
place, while the foreign blower and 
gatherer work double, or two to each 
place. The latter condition is due to 
a surplus of workers. The American 
blower works one hundred and sixty 
hours per month and produces 1,440 
rollers (you might know them better 
as cylinders), or 200 boxes of window 
glass, single strength. The foreign 
blower works one hundred and eighty 
hours per month, producing 2,200 cyl- 
inders, or 312 boxes of glass. 

The average number of 50-feet boxes 
of common window glass imported 
annually for the last twenty-four years 
is 854,324, aggregating 20,503,776 boxes. 
A box consists of 50 square feet. 

I believe that a lowering of the 
duty on common window glass would 
mean an increased importation of that 
article, comparative with the amount 
of the said reduction, and would work 
a corresponding injury to the window- 
glass workers and manufacturers alike 
of this country. 



Competition with Window=G!ass 
Blowers of Belgium at One=Fourth 
the Wages Paid in This Country. 

From the Congressional Record of June 17, 
1909. 

NATHAN B. SCOTT, of West Vir- 
ginia. Mr. President, I presume most 
of the Senators are aware of the fact 
that the window-glass factories shut 
down usually the first week in June 
and resume again the first week in 
September, virtually putting the skilled 
labor and all other labor out of em- 
ployment for three months. There is 
perhaps no other manufacturing in- 
dustry that requires more skill or 
places a greater strain upon the me- 
chanic than blowing glass. With a 
cylinder anywhere from 4 to 8 feet in 
length, with a man holding it on the 
end of a pipe, a pipe 4 or 5 feet long, 
you can well imagine not only the 
muscular strain, but also the amount 
of lung power he must necessarily 
have to blow that cylinder out. 

These men are asked to come In 
competition with the window-glass 
blowers of Belgium, where, unless 
the conditions of wages have changed 
in the last four years, when I visited 



that country, the wages are not more 
than one-fourth of what the window- 
glass blower in this country gets. 

Many of these window-glass fac- 
tories in this country are what we call 
"co'operative." They are organized by 
the workingmen themselves — by men 
who have been frugal and saved a 
few thousand dollars. Eight or ten or 
fifteen of them pool their small savings 
and build a small factory. When the 
time comes that there is no demand 
for glass, -these men have to earn, as 
it Were, weekly stipends to keep their 
families. Consequently, they autho- 
rize the sale of the glass at a ruinous 
price in order that they may keep at 
work. Before the panic of 1907, when 
building in this country fell off, when 
people would not improve or build new 
houses, the window-glass business was 
fairly good under the Protection we 
had under the Dingley law. 

But conditions combined to put these 
men in a very bad shape. All they 
have in the world is invested in these 
small factories, and the legislation 
that is being offered here, proposing 
a reduction of the duties on glass, I 
want to say to my fellow-Senators, 
is a direct stab at the laboring men 
themselves and the mechanics engaged 
in the window-glass business. 

I do not intend to detain the Sen- 
ate, but I have tried in these few 
words to present this case as I know 
it exists. I do not believe there is a 
single window-glass factory in my 
State — I may be mistaken — that is not 
what we call "co-operative," belonging 
to the men themselves who operate and 
control the plant. I do hope it will 
not be the pleasure of the Senate to 
reduce the duty on glass. 



i 



Protest Against Free-Trade in Wood 
Pulp and Paper. 

From the Congressional Record of June j8, 
1909. 
JACOB H. GALLINGER. of New 
Hampshire. Mr. President, I have per- 
sistently refrained from unnecessarily 
occupying any time in the discussion 
of abstract Tariff matters, feeling an 
intense desire to have this bill become 
a law at the earliest possible mo- 
ment. The great business interests 
of the country are anxiously watching 
our proceedings, and the laboring men 



GALLINGER. 



34: 



are hoping and praying for a settle- 
ment of the controversy, believing 
that industrial activity will then be 
accelerated and added employment be 
given to the class to which they be- 
long. But notwithstanding my disin- 
clination to occupy the attention of 
the Senate, I feel constrained to sub- 
mit some observations against the pro- 
posed reduction of duties on print pa- 
per and wood pulp, and especially to 
enter my solemn protest against the 
Free-Trade argument of the Senator 
from Nebraska and the industrial war 
scare that he has raised between this 
country of 85,000,000 people and the 
Dominion of Canada, with six or seven 
million population. With some knowl- 
edge of the relations between the 
United States and Canada, neither the 
heated speech of the Senator from 
Nebraska nor the heated speech of the 
premier of the Province of Quebec — 
not the premier of the Dominion — 
will alarm me in the least. 

Mr. President, it is interesting to 
note the fact that Senators who live 
in States where trees are as scarce 
as hen's teeth assume to instruct some 
of the rest of us on questions that 
presumably we fairly well vmderstand. 

They see devastating floods, disas- 
trous droughts, and all kinds of dam- 
age to property interests if those who 
own forests, and who largely derive 
a living from forest products, are not 
by legislation regulated and restrained 
in their legitimate pursuits. But, Mr. 
President, from the time of the first 
memorable flood to the present day the 
earth has been visited by floods and 
droughts and pestilence, and doubtless 
will be to the end of time. Very likely, 
the ruthless and indiscriminate re- 
moval of the forests has had a ten- 
dency to disturb the equal and normal 
flow of water in the streams of the 
country, but the extent to which this 
lias occurred has been greatly ex- 
aggerated. The truth is that under 
modern methods of lumbering inany of 
the evils of the past have been cured 
and the dangers froni floods have been 
reduced to the minimum. 

The observations I have made, Mr. 
President, are preliminary to a discus- 
sion of the proposition embodied in the 
bill as it came from the House, to put 
wood pulp on the free list and reduce 
the duty on print paper from six to 



two dollars per ton. I shall endeavor 
to point out that no reduction what- 
ever should be made, but if it should 
be decided to act otherwise the reduc- 
tion should not be so sweeping and 
cruel as to destroy one of the leading 
industries of the United States and 
transfer it to our neighbors on the 
North. It has been truthfully repre- 
sented that the reduction of these du- 
ties 

Will Seriously Injure the Industry Without 

Any Corresponding Advantage in Any 

Direction. 

Thirty-two States have paper and 
pulp mills, and there are great possi- 
bilities for the industry if not de- 
stroyed by Tariff legislation. 

The value of the paper and pulp 
produced in the United States during 
1907 is estimated to be $250,000,000, 
and the total value of news print paper 
produced during 1907 in the United 
States is estimated to be ?50,000,000. 

A year ago the demaftd was made 
that Congress should immediately 
take the duty off from print paper 
and pulp, allegations being made that 
the whole industry consisted of a mo- 
nopoly and that extortionate prices 
were being demanded under the shield 
of the Tariff. A special committee of 
investigation was appointed by the 
House of Representatives, with the 
result that it hias been conclusively 
shown that there is no monopoly in 
the business or any branch of it; that 
there is no combination in restraint 
of trade among the manufacturers of 
news print paper; and that the recent 
small increase in price was due to 
natural causes, such as increase in 
cost of labor and of wood. Prices 
were shown not to be exorbitant. It 
has also been shown that the Tariff 
has not been responsible for any rise 
In the price of paper. These conclu- 
sions were foreshadowed by the pre- 
liminary report of the investigating 
committee and confirmed by their final 
determination. 

Republican Principles or Democratic De- 
mands? 

Mr. President, if the principles of 
the Republican party and platform 
were adhered to, the duties on paper 
and pulp might rightly be increased 
rather than diminished. TJie Republican 



34t) 



GALLINGER. 



party, in its platform, made a specific 
avowal of its intention in regard to 
the revision of the Tariff along lines 
of Protection to all Industries. The 
Democratic platform made a specific 
avowal of its intention to remove the 
duty on paper and pulp. It now re- 
mains to be seen whether Congress 
will follow out the principles of the 
Republican party or yield to the un- 
reasonable and unreasoning demands 
of the Democratic party. 

The grounds on which the Demo- 
cratic platform proposed to remove the 
duty from paper and pulp have been 
shown to be erroneous. The chief rea- 
son advanced was the preservation of 
our forests. The American people have 
recently learned a good many things 
about the relation of the paper in- 
dustry to the forests which they did 
not know before. Less than 2 per 
cent of the total consumption of wood 
in this country is domestic pulp wood. 
Further consideration of the relation 
of the Tariff . to forest conservation 
has persuaded many people that low- 
ering the Tariff on paper or removing 
it would tend rather to destroy the 
forests in this country and compel the 
owners of timber lands to strip them 
promptly before being driven out of 
business or over to Canada. The for- 
estry commissioners of the States of 
New York, Maine, Vermont, and New 
Hampshire have all stated that this 
will be the result. 

Forests Will Be Preserved if Protection 
Is Retained. 

Mr. President, as a matter of fact, 
the paper manufacturers ' have for 
eleven years advocated the adoption of 
practical forestry methods and conser- 
vation of the forests in this country, 
and it is with this object that they 
have acquired timber lands in Canada, 
and now own twice as much forest 
area in Canada as in the United States. 
Some of the largest holders of timber 
lands in the United States for years 
have been operating their timber lands 
in accordance with the advice of the 
Forestry Department in Washington. 
A concerted movement has recently 
been started, representing three-fifths 
of the paper manufacturers' holdings 
of timber lands, for the purpose of ex- 
tending the application of forestry 
principles not only on the part of 



paper manufacturers, but to make an 
example to be folloAved by other in- 
dustries. This movement will surely 
be killed if the paper industry is de- 
prived of adequate Protection, and the 
2,700,000 acres of timber lands in New 
England owned by paper manufactur- 
ers will be seriously jeopardized. 

No valid argument for lowering the 
duty on paper has been advanced. The 
principles of the Protective Tariff and 
the pledges of the Republican party, 
the conservation of the forest and the 
perpetuation of the paper industry In 
this country, and particularly in New 
England, the welfare of the numerous 
communities entirely dependent upon 
the paper industry, as well as the gen- 
eral prosperity of the country, are all 
positive reasons why the Tariff should 
not be lowered. 

A Publisher Who Wants the Duty Retained. 

Mr. President, I can not refrain from 
quoting a letter written by Mr. A. P. 
Moore, president and editor in chief of 
the Pittsburg "Leader," addressed to 
the chairman of the Finance Commit- 
tee. It is so entirely just that it ought 
to appeal to every fair-minded man. 
Mr. Moore says: 

Coming from Pittsburg, which naturally 
is a Tariff-Protection centre, I am in- 
terested in the Tariff legislation. We 
want a Tariff on iron and steel, and, 
while it might be possible I could secure 
print paper somewhat cheaper for a 
time if the Tariff on print paper and 
wood pulp was taken off, I feel that in 
fairness to all American industries it 
would not be right to take the Tariff off 
paper and pulp. If paper is put on the 
free list, it means that a great American 
industry, employing perhaps a hundred 
thousand men, will be driven from thi.^ 
country to Canada. As an American bus- 
iness man, I do not want to be com- 
pelled to buy my paper in Canada and be 
subject to the whims of the Canadian 
manufacturer. The indications are that 
if paper and pulp are admitted free, the 
Canadian government will place an ex- 
port duty on these materials, and the 
result will be that the American pub- 
lisher will be at the mercy of the foreign 
manufacturers, and we then can not em- 
ploy our antitrust laws to get at them. 
What the American publisher wants is 
stability in price and quality. When the 
Tariff is adjusted, it will be possible for 
us to make contracts with the American 
paper manufacturers for a term of years, 
say. for five or ten. and we will know 
exactly what we are doing. If the Tar- 
iff is taken off, it will mean that we will 
have to make contracts from year to 
year, with the chance that the company 
we are dealing with will go into bank- 
ruptcy and we will be at the mercy of 
some foreigner. A newspaper must have 



GALLINGER. 



347 



paper every day in the year. It can not 
shut down for a single day, and can not 
take the chances the iron and steel or any 
other business takes. This is a grave 
question, and I am afraid some of my 
brother publishers who are taking only a 
selfish view of this question will live to 
regret their action if paper and pulp are 
admitted free into this country. It will 
drive our own industries out, and if any 
one of them fails for a single day's pro- 
duction it will almost mean ruination to 
them. 

In round figures, I purchase for my 
publication $150,000 worth of paper a 
year. I am naturally anxious to buy it as 
cheaply as possible, but I am not in the 
business for a week, a month, or a year, 
but must go on indefinitely. If your com- 
mittee will go into this matter as we 
have had to do and get a thorough un- 
derstanding, I am sure you will permit 
the Tariff to remain on paper and pulp 
as it is. If I can assist in any way with 
information, I will only be too glad to do 
so, as I think it is the duty of any 
newspaper publisher to do. 

These quotations are sufficient to 
show that the newspapers of the coun- 
try are far from being united on this 
question, and the same thing can be 
said of the magazines. Indeed the 
clamor largely comes from the cheap 
and sensational part of the newspaper 
press. 

And again I am tempted to inquire: 

"Why Single Out This Industry for 
Slaughter?" 

Think of the injustice that is pro- 
posed! The average ad valorem duties 
in the bill Is about 45 per cent, and 
It is solemnly proposed that pulp wood 
shall be free, and the duty on print 
paper be fixed at 5 per cent. Surely 
the Senator from Nebraska, when he 
looks at the duties on the products of 
his own State, will blush to think that 
he Is about to do so flagrant an injus- 
tice to other sections of the country. 

In addition to the immense harm 
that will come to the manufacturers 
and workingmen directly engaged in 
the industry, another class will be 
made to suffer serious loss, and that 
is the 69 builders of machines for 
making paper who have petitioned the 
Senate against the proposed reduction 
of duties. The Invested capital in that 
line of business is $7,650,000; the an- 
nual output is $4,000,000; and the num- 
ber of employees Is about 3,000. These 
men import nothing, but use American 
Iron, copper, and lumber in their in- 
dustry. Surely thej', too, deserve con- 
sideration at the hands of the Repub- 



lican party. On what hypothesis is It 
to be denied? 

But, Mr. President, not only are we 
to be put at the mercy of Canada If 
the House bill becomes a law, but be- 
yond doubt 

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland 

Will Enter Our Markets. 

The paper mills in these countries 
aggregate 112, divided as follows: In 
Norway 23, Sweden 67, Denmark 3, and 
Finland 19. Finland particularly has 
enormous forest reserves, excellent 
water power, and the paper-making in- 
dustry in that country is in its infancy. 
The cost of production in these mills is 
much lower than the cost of produc- 
tion in the United States, owing to 
cheaper wood and much cheaper labor. 
Most of them are situated within easy 
reach of seaboard, whence the rates 
of freight to the United States are as 
low in most cases as the rates from 
our mills to points of consumption in 
this country, and undoubtedly a large 
amount of paper produced by these 
countries will find its way here if the 
present duty on news print paper is 
largely reduced. 

The chief excuse urged for the pro- 
posed legislation is that an increase 
has been made in the price of print 
paper and that it will conserve Ameri- 
can forests. So far as American for- 
ests are concerned, it will have the op- 
posite effect. As soon as it is settled 
that Canada is to have practical free 
trade in pulp and paper every Ameri- 
can owner of spruce lands will strip 
them as soon as possible, not exercis- 
ing much care in the process, the only 
consideration being to get as much as 
possible out of the lands before the 
industry is transferred to Canadian 
soil. That will be the inevitable re- 
sult. As to the increased cost of pa- 
per, it has been less in percentage 
than almost any other American prod- 
uct, and, as before pointed out, is sell- 
ing in the United States for less than 
in other countries. 

Costs More to Produce Paper Here Than 
in Canada. 

It should be kept in mind that it 
costs much more to produce a ton of 
paper in the United States than in 
Canada. On this point there is a con- 
troversy, the question of wages enter' 



848 



GALLINGER. BRISTOW. 



ing into it. Fortunately, we have an 
official statement bearing- on this mat- 
ter which ought to put the matter 
beyond further contention. On pages 
3258-3269 of the report of the special 
committee of the House of Representa- 
tives, Hon. Charles P. Neill, Commis- 
sioner of Labor, supplies a table that 
deserves attention, from which it ap- 
pears thglt the wages paid in this 
country in the paper industry are ap- 
proximately 33 1-3 per cent above 
those paid in Canada. I have had a 
careful synopsis made of those tables, 
which I will ask leave to insert in my 
remarks, and to which I call the spe- 
cial attention of the Senator from 
Nebraska [Mr. Brown]. 

Why Not? 

If we are to have low duties or no 
duties on paper and pulp at the be- 
hest of the Senator from Nebraska 
and other Senators, and at the demand 
of the cheap newspapers of the coun- 
try, why not low duties on wheat and 
corn and oats and barley and beef for 
New England? 

Mr. BRISTOW. I feel perfectly as- 
sured in saying that the Senators rep- 
resenting agricultural States will be 
delighted to have the duties reduced 
on agricultural products if they can 
be reduced on manufactured products 
correspondingly. They, indeed, would 
be glad to have the duties taken off if 
the duties on manufactured products 
can represent the difference in the cost 
of product here and abroad, and no 
more. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, I 
have no doubt the Senator is entirely 
willing to do that if we allow him to 
destroy the manufacturing industries 
of the United States. I have no ques- 
tion of that. 

New England is entirely dependent 
on the great West for agricultural 
products, and their high value is a 
great hardship to our people. New- 
England consumes five or six million 
barrels of western flour each year. If 
lowering duties lessens the price to 
the consumer, why should not New 
England demand lower duties on wheat 
and flour? New England does not do 
this, for the reason tliat New Eng- 
land believes In applying the Protec- 
tion policy equally to all sections of 
the country. But while doing this 
why should this great industry of New 



r o^B 



England be sacrificed on the altar 
Free-Trade? 

Increased Price a Poor Excuse for Lower 
Duiies. 

The increase In the price of paper 
has been comparatively slight, and yet 
that increase has been urged with a 
great deal of vigor, energy, and de- 
nunciation as a reason for removing 
the duty on print paper. If that policy 
should prevail, this bill would be made 
up of a free list, and nothing else. 

I want to repeat, that if the increase 
in the price of an article is a reason 
for putting it on the free list, this 
bill ought to be made up of a free list, 
and nothing else. 

Even the special committee of the 
House admitted in their report that an 
increase in the price of paper was 
.iustified, their exact words being: 

It would appear that the increase in 
the value and cost of pulp wood, the in- 
crease in wages, the decrease in the 
hours of labor of many of the employees, 
and the increase in cost of other ma- 
terials used, justified some increase in the 
price of paper. 

Of course it did, and what folly it is 
to use that circumstance as a reason 
for removing or lowering the duty. 

Wages Here and in Foreign Countries. 

' Mr. President, much has been said 
in this debate about wages, and some 
Senators have exerted themselves to 
prove that wages in foreign countries 
are at as high a level as in the United. 
States. Every man who has investi- 
gated that subject knows to the con- 
trary. Look at the report of Special 
Agent Clark, who has been frequently 
quoted in this debate. He says that 
in the textile industry we are paying 
twice the wages that are being paid 
in Great Britain. While the difference 
is not so great between the wages in 
this country and Canada, the differ- 
ence is sufficient to place us at a great 
disadvantage. And yet it has been 
claimed, over and over again, that 
there is practically no difference in 
the wages paid in this and other coun- 
tries. Truly it Is a remarkable con- 
tention. 

As I have before stated, the figures 
submitted by the United States Com- 
missioner of Labor, Mr. Neill, put the 
difference in wages In the paper mills 
of the United States and Canada at 
about 33 1-3 per cent. 



GALLINGER. BULKELEY. 



549 



Personally, I know something about 
this matter, derived from my frequent 
visits to Canada and my association 
with the people of that country. Aside 
from farmers going to the northwest 
Canadian Provinces, there is no emi- 
gration from this country to Canada, 
while Canadians flock to our forests 
and our mills in great numbers, sim- 
ply because the wages are greater on 
this side of the line. In Senate Docu- 
ment No. 16, printed only a few days 
ago, our consul at Owen Sound, On- 
tario, speaking of lumber, says: 

The cheaper labor in the woods and 
mills will more than offset the duty. 

That is undoubtedly true, and it has 
an Important bearing on the subject 
under discussion. 

Wages Here at Least 30 Per Cent Higher 
Than in Canada. 

I have some familiarity with the 
paper mills of Canada. I have talked 
with Canadian public men and asso- 
ciated with the laboring men of the 
Dominion. I know something about 
the industrial condition there as com- 
pared with the industrial condition in 
the United States. I could cite, If it 
were necessary, instances with which 
I am familiar of men working in the 
paper mills of Canada, and could com- 
pare their wages with those of men in 
this country. But that is not neces- 
sary. But I assert It as a fundamental 
and unanswerable fact that the wages 
In this country in all our industries, 
paper making included, are at least 
30 per cent in advance of the wages 
paid in any Province of the Dominion 
of Canada. 

If It were not so, Mr. President, the 
mills of our Eastern States, the for- 
ests of our Eastern States, the brick- 
yards of our Eastern States, would 
not be filled with men coming from 
Canada to this country. They would 
remain at home. They surely do not 
come "for their health. 

If that be so, it is a most astounding 
fact that men will emigrate from their 
own country to a country which gives 
them less opportunity for comfort, 
happiness, and prosperity than they 
Gould get on their own farms or in 
their own mills or in their own forests. 
Who believes it? 

Mr. President, this matter has not 
escaped the attention of the labor In- 



terests of the country. The Congress 
of the Knights of Labor ha.s put itself 
on record against the proposed legisla- 
tion, closing their earnest protest In 
these words: 

Without the existing Protection the 
great paper industry will be crippled and 
the wage-earner, the forest, and ulti- 
mately the consumer will be endangered 
by driving the industry to Canada. 

It is astonishing to me how acute 
is the mind of some of these labor 
leaders, how accurately they gauge a 
great public question. These men 
know that if this industry is trans- 
ferred to Canada, as it will be trans- 
ferred to Canada unless it is adequate- 
ly Protected, the men whom they rep- 
resent will be turned out of employ- 
ment and suffer the consequences of 
such a foolish legislative act on our 
part. This great organization con- 
tinues: 

Should this industry decline it means 
a death blow to many communities clus- 
tered about the paper mills. 

The Senators from Maine know how 
that is. They know how towns and 
villages have been built up in Maine, 
clustered around paper mills, entirely 
dependent upon the employment they 
there receive. Blot them out and 
those communities will be like some 
of the mining communities where the 
mineral has refused to give itself up 
to the labor that formerly produced it. 
I continue to quote: 

Should this industry decline it means 
the death blow to many communities 
clustered about the paper mills and the 
breaking up of American homes and 
migration of our skilled labor to Canada 
and the forcing of the unskilled into other 
channels, now overcrowded. 

In justice to American labor and in- 
dustry and in the name of the vast army 
of American workmen who are dependent 
upon the paper industry for a livelihood, 
we ask that the existing duty of $6 per 
ton on print paper and $1.66 per ton on 
wood pulp be maintained in the Tariff bill 
now pending before Congress. 



Democratic Editors Opposed to Re= 
duction of Duties on Wood Pulp 
and Paper. 

From the Congressional Record of June i8, 
1909. 
MORGAN G. BULKELEY, of Connec- 
ticut. In view of the quotation from 
the publisher of a Republican paper, I 
desire, without detaining the Senate 
by any remarks, to have read a letter 



350 



BULKELEY. JOHNSON. 



from the editor and publisher of the 
leading Democratic journal of my own 
State on this question. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without ob- 
jection, the Secretary will read as re- 
quested. 

The Secretary read as follows: 
The Hartford Times, April 7, 1909. 
Hon. Nelson W. Aldrich, Chairman 

United States Senate Finance Commit- 
tee, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: Recognizing the peril now 
confronting a New England industry, 
whose volume of business reaches the 
great sum of $100,000,000 annually, I 
write at this time to outline a number of 
objections to the proposed reduction in 
the duty on white paper and the admit- 
tance of wood pulp free. And in doing 
this I am simply reaffirming the position 
I took in an editorial in April, 1908, a 
copy of which I am inclosing herewith. 

At that time it was plain that the de- 
mand for free pulp came almost entirely 
from certain publishers who were offering 
for sale a finished product at a price 
that did not cover the cost of raw ma- 
terial. I could find no logical reason for 
giving support to this movement, and 
when the material advance in the cost 
of print paper added $1,000 a month to 
the running expenses of the "Times," I 
found by thorough investigation that the 
demand was just. Within ten years the 
cost of labor has increased 30 to 50 per 
cent, and raw material, in some cases, as 
much as 100 per cent. 

I believe a reduction in the duty on pa- 
per and pulp would surely bring about a 
far greater increase in the cost of paper 
than could come from any other source. 
Canada, with her immense resources, 
would first drive the American paper 
makers from the field, and then, in all 
probability, increase the export duty to 
such an extent that the cost of paper 
would be far greater than it ever can be 
under the present Tariff. 

I know that you and your committee 
will give this matter due consideration, 
and act for the best interests of a New 
England industry that produces nearly 
one-half of the country's output. of white 
paper, and when you Protect New Eng- 
land in this respect you are Protecting 
every paper maker from the Atlantic to 
the Pacific. 

Very truly yours, 

W. O. Burr, 
Editor and Publisher. 

Why Enrich Canada? 

Mr. BULKELEY. Now, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I desire to ask to have inserted 
in the Record, without reading, ex- 
cepting a few lines, an editorial pub- 
lished in the Boston "Herald," unlor 
date of April 7, 1909, entitled "Why 
Enrich Canada." I read the conclud- 
ing lines: 

The public seems to have assumed that 
the newspaper publishers of the country 
were a unit in their demand for the re- 



moval of the duty on wood pulp and news 
paper. But 1,800 publishers have not 
been heard from. Among these will be 
found many who apply the rules of sound 
business management to their enterprises 
and who put a price on their product 
commensurate with its cost. Such pub- 
lishers are not complaining. They realize 
that "there is a single interest in all in- 
dustry, and that each industry interlocks 
and is interdependent on others. They 
do not seek their own advantage by tear- 
ing down an industry that contributes to 
the general welfare. Many newspaper 
publishers, occupying this point of view, 
will indorse Congressman Currier in his 
protest against injustice to an industry 
which is an important factor in New 
England's prosperity. 



Democratic Party Demanded Removal 
of Tariff Wliere No Tariff Existed. 

From tlie Congressional Record of June i8, 
1909. 

MARTIN N. JOHNSON, of North Da- 
kota. Mr. President, it has been said 
that the Tariff ought to be revised by 
its friends. This plank in the Demo- 
cratic platform indicates that if that 
party were intrusted with the revi- 
sion of the Tariff it would not even 
have been revised by its acquaintances. 
There were six Democratic Senators on 
that committee, at least two ex-Sena- 
tors that I know of, and perhaps oth- 
ers. The men w^ho wrote that plat- 
form were leading Democrats, and they 
adopted this plank demanding the Im- 
mediate repeal of the Tariff on logs, 
on pulp wood, and on cord wood. They 
ought to have known that those things 
are on the free list now, and have been 
on the free list for twelve years. 

I felt the claw and tooth of that in 
the last campaign, and I think it is 
not improper to make the protest 
here. They made the people believe 
that there was a duty on those things. 
They might just as well have said 
that they demanded the immediate re- 
peal of the Sherman silver law or the 
proclamation for the emancipation of 
the slaves — things that we had done 
years and years ago. 

The people of North Dakota and the 
people in the great prairie States, 
reading in the newspapers this plank, 
were led to believe that there was a 
duty on cord wood, on pulp wood, out 
of which paper is made, and on logs. 
The fact is, that not only are those 
things on the free list, but ship planks 
are on the free list, sliip timber is 



I 



JOHNSON. CLAPP. 



851 



on the free list, shingle bolts and 
handle bolts, out of which we make 
axe-handles and pick-handles, are on 
the free list, and ev^n gunstocks, if 
planed on one side, are on the free 
list. Yet we were put in the attitude 
of resisting- this Democratic platform, 
which demanded the immediate repeal 
of the Tariff on these things that we 
had repealed years and years ago. It 
was a load that we had to carry, and 
It was an unfair and a very heavy 
load In the prairie States. 



Paper Sells Higher in Free=Trade 
Great Britain Than in the United 
States. 

From the Congressiotial Record of June i8, 
1909. 

MOSES E. CLAPP, of Minnesota. Mr. 
President, the next test of whether the 
Tariff is too high is to be found, in my 
judgment, In the question of how far 
that Tariff enables a man within the 
Tariff wall to dump goods at a less 
cost upon foreign countries than he 
sells them f o"r~^ in his own market. 
Measured by that test, we find that 
the present law has not unduly accen- 
tuated or developed the making of 
paper in this country and the sale of 
it in foreign countries at less than 
in our home market. 

In 1890, in Free-Trade Great Britain, 
paper was selling at $77.72 per ton. 
In that same j^ear it was selling in 
France at $77.95, in Germany at $64.68, 
and in this country at $68. These fig- 
ures are taken from these investiga- 
tions. 

For 1908 the price in Free-Trade 
England had fallen to $44.20, in France 
to $55.86, in Germany to $46.35, and in 
this country the very highest price 
was $44.41. I shall not read the fig- 
ures for the intermediate years, but I 
ask perinission to have the table In- 
serted in the Record. 

That was the next point that I in- 
tended to reach — the cost of produc- 
tion. While I have often said, and I 
saj'- again, that, while I attach little 
importance to detail figures trying to 
show just what it costs to produce a 
thing in a mill or factory, yet the 
broad determination is made upon 
prices; and when we compare the price 
of Canadian pulp wood with American 
pulp wood we find there 



A Reason Why the American Manufac- 
turer Should Receive This Protection 
In addition to the difference in the cost 
of labor itself. Measured by that test 
— I will not weary the Senate with a 
recital of all the figures — the figures 
show conclusively that year after year 
the cost of wood in this country has 
been more than the cost of wood In 
Canada. I ask permission to submit 
that and have it inserted in the Rec- 
ord. 

Now, Mr. President, taking these 
broad principles, the increase in the 
price of raw material that goes into 
this product, the Importation from 
Canada, the fact that this industry has 
never been able to dump its goods in 
any foreign market at a less price 
than at home, all have satisfied me 
that this duty has not worked injuri- 
ously to the American people in the 
Protection which it has accorded to 
this particular industry. 

Last fall I heard a great deal about 
the advance in the price of paper. 
During the campaign I asked a great 
many men in our State who are publish- 
ing newspapers about it. Their univer- 
sal verdict was that there had been no 
startling increase in the price of pa- 
per, viewed in the light of the general 
uplift of prices in this country in the 
past few years. During the winter I 
wrote letters to a nvimber of those 
publishers, and but one of them has 
complained of that increase. 

Petitions have been presented here 
asking for the removal of this duty 
from the standpoint of labor. Mr. 
President, we also have petitions here 
from labor organization after labor or- 
ganization asking that this duty be 
retained at the rate which it has been 
understood for some time would prob- 
ably be the report of the committee. 
There are 

Two Sides to This Labor Question. 

There are thousands of people em- 
ployed in these mills, and perhaps 
there Is no other industry in this coun- 
try that appeals to the poor . in its 
neighborhood as do these mills. These 
mills, as a rule, are located on the 
frontier. 

I know something of what the peo- 
ple on the frontier have to endure; 
and I have received letters from those 
people urging us to maintain a Tariff 



351 



ALDRICH. 



that will insure the permanence of 
this industry, because the settler finds 
the mills will take wood which would 
otherwise be refuse on his land, and 
he gets a little return in clearing his 
land. 



"The Deliberate and Avowed Purpose 
of Transferring the Entire Industry 
of Making Pulp and Paper from the 
United States to Canada." 

From the Congressional Record of June l8, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. Mr. President, the amendment 
of the committee involves questions of 
national and international importance 
which ought to have serious considera- 
tion on the part of Senators. Since 
the Mann report was made and since 
this bill passed the House of Repre- 
sentatives the Canadian government 
has officially announced its purpose to 
transfer the pulp and paper industry 
from the United States to Canada. 
That purpose has been understood in 
Canada for some time, but it has never 
until recently been officially, announced. 

The Province of Ontario some time 
ago inserted provisions in the crown 
leases which made impossible the ex- 
portation of logs and of pulp wood 
from that country. Now, the premier 
of the Province of Quebec has an- 
nounced in a public statement that 
the same policy is to be adopted in 
that Province. It is stated unofficially 
that the premier of the Province ap- 
proves this policy. 

Now, what is this policy? It is to 
prevent and forbid the exportation 
from Canada of logs and pulp wood. 
Canada is going back to the middle 
ages and adopting the policy which 
was adopted in England two or three 
hundred years ago, of forbidding the 
exportation of machinery and of for- 
bidding the exportation of gold and 
silver. The theories of the past are 
revived and re-enacted in the Do- 
minion .of Canada at this moment for 
the deliberate and avowed purpose of 
transferring the entire industry of 
making pulp and paper from the Unit- 
ed States to Canada, and we are 
asked In the Senate of the United 
States to put those products upon our 
free list or to substantially reduce 



the duty for the purpose of assisting 
the Dominion of Canada in this work 
of destruction. 

I think it is time that the American 
Senate should stop to consider this 
question from that standpoint as well 
as from another, to which I will call 
the attention of the Senate later. 

Now, what is the purpose? The pur- 
pose of these gentlemen can be carried 
out, perhaps. If we give them ingress 
to the markets of the United States, 
which is the great paper market of 
the world. 

This Announced Purpose of the Canadian 
Governmeni Was Not Known 

at the time that the Mann committee 
were considering this question and 
when they made their report. It was 
not known when the House of Repre- 
sentatives passed this bill, and is it 
the desire of the American Congress 
and the American people to facilitate 
this work of destruction, to tear down 
the walls which Protect the American 
market? Then we should adopt the 
progressive amendments which have 
been suggested by the Senator from 
Nebraska and the Senator from Mis- 
souri and the Senator from Wisconsin 
and remove the obstacles, so as to en- 
able Canada to carry out this new 
policy of hers. 

The Dominion of Canada has an un- 
limited amount of wood; she has wat- 
er power; she has everything else that 
America has; she intends deliberately 
to produce wood pulp and paper in 
her Dominion; and in order to do that, 
she is throwing a line of prohibition 
around the United States. What 
ought we to do under these circum- 
stances? That is the question. What 
is our duty? Is it the purpose of the 
Senator from Nebraska and the Sena- 
tors who are associated with him in 
this matter to remove the duties en- 
tirely for the purpose of giving this 
market to Canada and to aid them In 
carrying out this purpose? It ought 
to be our purpose to put such restric- 
tions upon our markets, to put such 
conditions upon the entering into our 
markets, as will make it impossible, so 
far as the action of the United States 
is concerned, to carry out successfully 
this new policy of the Canadian gov- 
ernment. That is my notion about It. 
I would provid* for the imposition of 



I 



ALDRTCIT. BROWN. FRYE. 



such duties as would make it impossi- 
ble for those people to come here and 
take possession of our markets In 
competition with our own paper men. 

Mr. BROWN. How would the duty 
of $4 a ton on print paper stop the 
hand of the Canadian government from 
passing a law prohibiting exporta- 
tions? 

Mr. ALDRICH. It might not stop 
the liand of the government. 

Mr. BROWN. How would it tend to 
stop it? 

Three Hundred Million Dollars Invested 
in Paper Making. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I will explain that 
to the Senator if he would like. I 
will show exactly how it could stop it. 
We have in the United States invested 
in paper making $250,000,000. 

Mr. FRYE. Three hundred and fifty 
million dollars. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Three hundred and 
fifty million dollars. I will accept the 
^ggestion. We have $300,000,000. We 
have an amount of timber which will 
last this country for a hundred years 
at least; I think, myself, a great deal 
more than that. I think, as I stated 
the other day, with the processes of 
reforestation that are now going on 
in this country and with the immense 
amount of wood which is now in ex- 
istence in every Southern State and 
in every Western State and in every 
Northwestern State, we have wood 
enough in this country to-day to go 
on indefinitely in the manufacture of 
paper. 

What do we need to carry on that 
manufacture successfully? Do we need 
to tear down the barriers which have 
existed, when under a rate of $6 a ton 
the importations have been increasing 
in the last few years very rapidly; or 
do we need to put such restrictions as 
we propose in this bill upon articles 
imported under these conditions from 
Canada as will prevent the successful 
carrying out of this plan? 

We Ought to Impose Restrictions. 

My own judgment is we ought to 
put such restrictions upon the impor- 
tations of paper from Canada and 
make the rate of duty so high that it 
would not be possible for the Do- 
minion of Canada to carry out this 
new plan. But the amendment of the 
committee was not prepared for the 



purpose of prohibiting the importation 
of pulp wood or logs or paper from 
Canada Into the United States. 

When this bill came before the Com- 
mittee on Finance, they determined if 
possible to find out what was the rela- 
tive cost of , its production in the 
United States and Canada, with a view 
of recommending the imposition of 
such a duty as would equalize the dif- 
ference between the cost of production 
in Canada and the United States. 

These new conditions to which I 
have alluded had not then arisen and 
do not form a part of the judgment 
that is incorporated in the amendment 
suggested by the committee. 

Now, the committee asked the rep- 
resentatives of the Publishers* Asso- 
ciation and the representatives of 
these paper companies to furnish us 
testimony as to the difference in the 
cost of production between the two 
countries. As I stated yesterday, the 
statements furnished by these gentle- 
men were confiicting in their charac- 
ter. 

There was only one statement which 
was agreed upon by the representa- 
tives of both interests as a correct one. 
I do not mean to say that we based 
our judgment upon that statement. As 
I said yesterday, according to that 
statement the cost of producing paper 
was stated at $31.38 a ton in Canada. 
It included, however, $0.56 per ton as 
insurance and taxes, $1.31 for general 
expenses of the company in Brussels, 
Belgium 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President 

Mr. ALDRICH. Now, wait a mo- 
ment; and included $1.92 a ton for 
bonding, which has nothing to do, of 
course, with producing paper; thus re- 
ducing the mill cost of paper, from 
the logs to the paper — that is, the cost 
of conversion, and the cost of the logs 
—to $27.59 a ton. 

Greater Cost of Production in the United 
States. 

Now, that was one statement. The 
committee had a great variety of other 
statements in Canada and the United 
States. The result of our investiga- 
tions as to the cost of producing pa- 
per in the United States, investiga- 
tions made of the books of the com- 
panies themselves, investigations cov- 
ering a great variety of mills under a 



354 



ALDRICH. 



great variety of circumstances, led 
me to the conclusion, which I think Is 
absolutely correct, that it would cost 
131.50 a ton under the most favorable 
circumstances, and only taking into 
consideration the items which were 
taken In this Belgo-Canadian state- 
ment to produce that paper in the 
United States. That Is 'the very low- 
est price in the very best mills in the 
United States. 

Beyond that the committee were sat- 
isfied from a very exhaustive examina- 
tion (the Senator from Utah [Mr 
Smoot] has the details and the figures 
I will not take the time of the Sen- 
ate to go into the matter) that the 
cost of wood between the United States 
and Canada is at least ?4 a ton on 
the paper, which is the amount of the 
duty that we suggest should be paid 
in this case.. The Mann committee 
found that there was a difference In 
the cost of labor and an average on 
material of ?^ a ton, but we do not 
take that Into consideration. 



14 a ton more than it would to take 
tho.se same logs from the Canadian 
foi-ests to the Canadian mills 



Cost of Wood $4 a Ton More Than in 
Canada. 
We are certain from our investiga- 
tion that the value of wood in the 
United States is at least |4 a ton more 
than it is in Canada. The estimates 
which are given to us by the paper 
makers is vastly in excess of that in 
some parts of the country. The Sen- 
ator from Wisconsin [Mr. La Follette] 
said a few minutes ago that the cost 
Is very much greater In Wisconsin. 
The cost of producing paper in this 
country Is very much greater, as Is 
shown by. the sworn statement of the 
Audit Company, of New York, from 
139.50 a ton in all the mills in Wis- 
consin as against $27.59 In Canada, In 
every case ^here being a difference of 
110. Under, pther conditions the dif- 
ference was less. The mills in Wis- 
ponsin are not as well located with 
reference to wood as some of the other 
mills. If the price of wood was pre- 
cisely the same In Canada and the 
United States, then the difference 1« 
the cost of transportation would equal" 
at least the amount of duty, that we 
should get. In other words, taking 
the Canadian timber, from, the Ca- 
nadian forests and. transporting i,t to 
the Canadian mills, i^ t,he average 
American mills It would posti 9-.t least 



/n the Event of Prohibition of Exports. 

- It may happen In Canada that there 
will be an absolute prohibition upon 
importations to the United States of 
logs and pulp wood. If It Is our pur- 
pose to quietly submit to that sort of 
thing and suggest to our neighbors 
across the line that If all they have 
to do is to make a threat of this kind 
and the American Senate prostrates It- 
self before them, then we will reduce 
this duty or repeal It. If we Intend 
to Protect this great Industry In the 
United States, then we ought to 
strengthen the duty. We ought to put 
on the importation of pulp and pulp 
wood and paper In the United States 
such restrictions as will notify the 
Dominion of Canada that this Is not^ 
entirely a one-sided proposition, that"^ 
we have some Interests to serve, and' 
that we have some rights to maintain" 
on this side of the line. 

The Senator from Nebraslfea [Mr- 
Brown] the other day said that only" 
180,000 men, or something like that 
are employed in the pulp and paper 
mills of the United States-. I do not 
remember the number he stated, but I 
think he said that more men than that 
are employed in the newspaper offices 
of the country. Does the Senato^r^ 
think that the employees of the nev^s- 
paper offices of this country ar^x to, 
lose their occupation or have tjielr • 
wages reduced on account of a duty of • 
?4 or a difference of $2 on prin^tPaper' ■ 

Is It a matter of life and death 

Mr. BROWN. I should l|ke to an^ - 
swer the Senator. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Walt^ just a moment. 
Does the Senator think that the re- 
duction of ?2 from the Dingley rate ^ 
and an increase, of %2 above the Houae^ 
rate will operate to reduce the prices 
of the newspaper proprietors,- aad pub- 
lishers in the United States? Does he 
think that the circulation of the pa- 
pers is to be reduced,, that their adver- 
tismg charges are to be reduced, or 
that the pay of their employes is to , 
be red-uced on account of this reduc- 
tion? Certalply not. But 

If Cma^u Succeeds, ^n, Cfosing the Papgr' 
Mills. <ii< the. ttnited States. • 

yow put actually out of employment 



AT.DRICH. BULKELEY. 



355 



and banish from their homes the peo- 
ple Who are engaged In the business 

^\r Tu^looK a little at the char- 
acter of this duty. senators upon 
both sides of the Chamber have been 
■:lunla to impose small duties upon 
articles either for purposes of fro 
tection or for purposes of revenue. 

This duty is about 10 per cent. It 
tias very many features which are 
cqulte like the lumber business al- 
though, of course, print paper is a 
more%dvanced product than any kind 
of lumber. The duty upon these ar 
tides under the suggestion of the com- 
mittee is the lowest of any duty in 
this whole schedule. It is not ex- 
cessive and can not be construed to be 
excessive. If the newspaper publish- 
ers of the United States had to pay 
this total amount It would ^^^^J^ 
difference of only $4 a ton on the pa- 
per which they used. I ^o not be- 
lieve that the newspaper publishers of 
the United States are here asking for 
anything in charity. I believe that 
th« great mass of the newspaper pub- 
Ushers of the United States ^ant to 
liave the paper industry treated fairly. 
I know perfectly well that there are 
>certain newspapers In this country 
^that. by covert threats and the abuse 
(Of Senators and Members of the House 
:and everybody else who did not agree 
with them as to what should be done 
^ith this duty upon paper, have been 
tryiiig to force us to adopt these low 
ral^s or to put this paper upon the 
free list; but, in my judgment, those 
men represent a very small and a 
Arery unimportant minority of the 
great newspapers of the United States, 
whose treatment of public questions 
is not affected by their material in- 
terests The class who can only see 
an additional cost of perhaps I2 a. ton 
in the paper in the discussion and dis- 
position of a great question like this 
are so unimportant that they should 
not be considered here. 

It is our duty, representing the peo- 
ple of the United States, to take care 
^of these que^tioias with 

Fair Treckment to All the Peopfe of the 
Country. 

In ^/hatever interests or whatever in- 
dustries they are engaged, including 
€he newspapers; but what is there in 



this that can possibly be construed to 
be unfair treatment of the newspa- 
pers"? It is quite as much for the in- 
terests of the newspaper publishers 
of the United States to have this in- 
dustry maintained in this country m a 
fairly profitable condition and in a 
fairly prosperous condition as it is for 
anybody else. If you destroy this in- 
dustry here, who knows what the 
price of print paper will be in the next 
ten vears? As the Senator from Min- 
nesota [Mr. Clapp] has shown con- 
clusively, there have been no great 
advances. It is true that the paper 
companies did consider an advance, 
which perhaps was not justified, at one 
time, in 1907; they talked about it. 
They put up their prices, but never 
sold any paper at those prices; the 
price of paper went back, and it is 
now sold at not above what has been 
the average price for the past ten 
years. I think the Senator from Ne- 
braska will have to concede that. 

I have stated as concisely as I could 
the reasons which actuated the Com- 
mittee on Finance in making this rec- 
ommendation. They have desired to 
be perfectly fair in their treatment 
both of the newspapers and of the pa- 
per industry, and I believe that their 
judgment should be confirmed by the 
Senate. 



Free=Trade in Philippine Products 
Would Chiefly Benefit Large To- 
bacco and Cigar Manufacturers. 

From the Congressional Record of June i8, 
1909. 
MORGAN G. BULKELEY, of Con- 
necticut. My own view of the matter, 
as I have studied the question, is that 
we had far better, for the benefit of 
the Filipinos and their future, put a 
prohibitory duty on all their products 
until they have raised their quality so 
that they will be fit to enter into com- 
petition with the markets of the Unit- 
ed States and the products of our own 
industry. We should educate them 
with the idea that they can not come 
into competition with the world and 
its markets and its wage-earners until 
they produce a quality of goods, either 



356 



BULKELEY. BAILEY. HEYBURN. 



tobacco or sugar or anything else, that 
warrants entering into that competi- 
tion. 

I believe to-day, Mr. President, that 
the Filipinos can probably receive no 
benefits from this proposed legisla- 
lation, and that the only benefit which 
can accrue, if any accrue, will be to 
the large manufacturing tobacco in- 
dustries and the five or six large to- 
bacco companies and eigar manufac- 
turers of the city of Manila, who to- 
day fix the price in the rural districts 
of all the commodities for which we 
are legislating. But let us educate 
them first not only in their schools, 
but in their agricultural industries, 
with the idea, as I have said before, 
that it is the quality of goods that 
they put upon the market which pro- 
duces a market for the goods them- 
selves, and that a poor quality of 
goods will never find a market In the 
United States of America. 

The only benefits, to my mind, that 
can accrue to anyone from Free-Trade 
in the principal products of the Phil- 
ippines, especially in tobacco, are to 
the two or three large companies lo- 
cated in Manila who control very 
largely the dealings with the pro- 
ducers as well as the exportation of 
the manufactured products. The pro- 
ducers of tobacco are limited in num- 
ber, and the tobacco-producing lands 
are located largely in the valleys of 
the islands I have heretofore named; 
their land holdings are small, gen- 
erally about a single acre, and their 
product is traded for merchandise al- 
most exclusively with Chinese deal- 
ers, fairly to be presumed in the in- 
terest of the Manila companies; it Is 
possible, of course, that with the ad- 
vent of Free-Trade, even to a limited 
extent in the greater productions of 
the islands, that the great corpora- 
tions of our own country may see an- 
other opportunity for the development 
of their varied interests. 

On behalf of the tobacco industry 
of this country, and particularly of my 
own State, for which I speak here to- 
day, and representing, I believe, the 
views of the growers of leaf and wrap- 
per tobacco and manufacturers en- 
gaged In Its use, I ask you to give 
due consideration to this section be- 
fore permitting It to be enacted Into 
law. 



How the Income Tax Might Supplant 
the Collection of Revenue Through 
Tariff Duties. 

From the Congressional Record of June 19, 
1909. 

JOSEPH W. BAILEY, of Texas. I 
have no doubt the Senator from Rhode 
Island will be able to make some kind 
of defense for this advance that will 
at least pass, even if it is not accepted 
by his friends on that side. But all 
the time until within the last week 
the whole objection to this income-tax 
amendment has been, I mean so far 
as announced on the floor and as it 
appears in the Record, that it was un- 
necessary taxation, and therefore un- 
wise taxation. I perfectly understand 
that that is not the whole objection 
to it which Senators feel, and which 
Senators, whenever required to do so, 
would proclaim, but so far as the Rec- 
ord appears, that has been the sole 
argument against it. 

If it be true that the bill under con- 
sideration will raise through its Tariff 
schedules ample revenues to support 
the Government, then, obviously, no 
further money ought to be collected 
from the people, and, as obviously, if 
we are going to raise this $80,000,000 
on the incomes of the country, we 
ought to reduce the collections by $80,- 
000,000 on the consumption of the 
country. Holding to that view, I still 
contend that the first thing that ought 
to have been done in the considera- 
tion of this bill was to decide this in- 
come-tax amendment, so that if we did 
determine to raise a given amount of 
money in that way, we would raise 
that much less money in the other 
way. 



Should the Tariff Schedule Be Whit- 
tled Down so as to Leave a Mar- 
gin for Some Other Legislation? 

From the Congressional Record of June 19, 
J909. 
WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. 
It is not my intention to vote for an 
Income-tax bill to tax the net incomes 
of corporations or any other subter- 
fuge for the purpose of raising money 
enough to pay the expenses of the 
Government outside of the custom- 
house dues and the internal revenue. 



HEYBURTs^. ALDRICH. 



357 



I have very clearly defined views. I 
have some responsibility, at least to 
the extent of my constituency, and I 
desire that there shall be no misun- 
derstanding about it. It makes no 
difference in what shape the income- 
tax bill may come into the Senate, It 
makes no difference in what shape a 
bill may come into the Senate pro- 
posing to tax net incomes of corpora- 
tions or any other income of corpora- 
tions until a constitutional method for 
raising the money to pay the expenses 
of the Government is shown to be in- 
adequate, I will not give my support 
to extraordinary measures. I belong 
to the Republican party. I speak its 
principles. I am not ready to about 
face at the demand of anybody. We 
were marching and will continue to 
march, in my judgment, to a de- 
termination based upon the Protective- 
Tariff policy of the Republican party, 
and I certainly shall never admit de- 
feat until after the battle is long over. 

A Danger Facing the Republican Party. 

We are going forward to the con- 
sideration of the Tariff schedules that 
are framed upon the Protective-Tariff 
principle, and whether or not those 
schedule's are going to be whittled 
down now so as to leave a margin of 
necessity for some other legislation Is 
a question of very great importance 
to me. I have voted against every 
reduction in existing duties, because I 
believe that the promise that was 
made, and always is made, by the Re- 
publican party that it will pay the ex- 
penses of the Government through the 
means of the custom-house and by In- 
ternal revenue is the most sacred 
promise that the Republican party 
ever made to the American people. I 
for one propose to stand for it here 
or elsewhere, wherever it may arise. 

Now, I can see this danger facing 
the Republican party right now: That, 
resting upon the fancied security of 
ample revenue from other sources 
they may say: "Oh, well, no matter 
much whether this duty is high or 
whether low." For one, I shall still 
continue to march along the line of 
high Protective duty, for the dual 
purpose of producing revenue and 
paying the expenses of this Govern- 
ment. And I will be no — what do 
they call It? — discontent or. rebel. 

I will discuss the question of Pro- 



tective Tariff when it is up in order to 
be discussed, and not before; but at 
this particular time I am not going, 
so far as my vote or my consent is 
concerned, to make way for any sub- 
stitute for the principle of Protection. 
I want no substitute for it. We 
promised the people that we would 
stand for Protection, and we did not 
promise them that we would stand for 
any substitute for it. 



Wood Pulp Free, Provided No Re- 
strictions Are Imposed Upon Its 
Exportation. 

From the Congressional Record of June 19, 
1909. 
THE SECRETARY OF THE SEN- 
ATE. On page 176, Schedule M, Pulp, 
Papers, and Books, in lieu of para- 
graph 402, as printed in the bill, the 
committee proposes the following sub- 
stitute: 

402. Mechanically ground wood pulp, 
one-twelfth of 1 cent per pound, dry 
weight: Provided, however, That me- 
chanically ground wood pulp shall be 
admitted free of duty from any country 
or dependency (being the product of any 
such country or dependency), when and 
so long as such country or dependency, 
or any province or subdivision thereof, 
does not forbid or restrict the exportation 
of or impose any import or export duty, 
export license fee, or other export charge 
of any kind whatsoever, either directly or 
indirectly (whether in the form of addi- 
tional charge or license fee or otherwise), 
upon mechanically ground wood pulp, 
logs, or wood for use in the manufac- 
ture of wood pulp. Chemical wood pulp, 
unbleached, one-sixth of 1 cent per pound, 
dry weight; bleached, one-fourth of 1 cent 
per pound, dry weight: Provided, That 
if any country, dependency, province, or 
any subdivision thereof shall impose an 
export duty or other export charge of 
any kind whatsoever, either directly or 
indirectly, on pulp wood or logs exported 
to the United States, the amount of such 
export duty or other export charge shall 
be added as an additional duty to the 
duties herein imposed upon wood pulp 
when imported, directly or Indirectly, 
from such country or dependency: And 
provided further. That in case any such 
country, dependency, province, or sub- 
division thereof shall forbid, directly or 
indirectly, the exportation of any wood 
pulp, logs, or wood for use in the manu- 
facture of wood pulp, an additional duty 
equal to the rates of duties imposed by 
this paragraph upon wood pulp shall be 
imposed upon any wood pulp imported 
from such courrtry or dependency. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH. Mr. Presi- 
dent, we have simply said to the 
Canadian provinces, "If you do not 



358 



ALDRICH. NELSON. CLAPP. 



impose unreasonable restrictions upon 
the exportation of logs or pulp 
to the United States, we will admit 
the Canadian ground wood pulp into 
this country free; but if you do im- 
pose unreasonable restrictions or pro- 
hibitions upon the exportation to the 
United States, then you must pay a 
penalty of an additional duty equal 
to one-twelfth of 1 cent a pound." 
There is no prohibition about it at all. 
They simply pay the penalty of their 
own unreasonable treatment of the 
United States. 

An Unraasonable Condition. 

Mr. NELSON. Is that an unreason- 
able condition where they sell the 
right to cut timber at a reasonable 
figure, and say, "If you cut timber on 
our lands, we want you to manufac- 
ture that timber in this country?" 

Mr. ALDRICH. Well, it is unreason- 
able, so far as we are concerned; and 
it makes no difference to us whether 
that prohibition is made by a Prov- 
ince which is under the control of the 
Dominion government or made directly 
by the Dominion government. It 
makes not the slightest difference In 
its effect upon us. If the Provinces of 
Canjada can legislate against the in- 
terests of the United States in that 
particular, they may legislate against 
the interests of the United States In 
every particular. They may prohibit 
the exportation of wood of all kinds, 
or they may prohibit the exportation 
of any other article to the United 
States that we are now buying from 
Canada. If 3'^ou allow this subterfuge 
of getting behind the right of a 
Province to do things which we hold 
the Dominion of Canada responsible 
for, there will be no limit to what 
may be done in that direction. 

I was going to say, in answer both 
to the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Clapp] and the Senator from South 
Dakota [Mr. Crawford], that it is very 
evident from public declarations that 

H Is the Purpose of Canada to Extend 
the Prohibition, 

which is now applicable in Ontario, 
to otlier Provinces, especially to the 
Province of Quebec, which is the prin- 
cipal exporter of wood to the United 
States. Those Senators must see that 
the prohibition of the exportation of 



spruce or other logs for paper use or 
for pulp use is inevitable. So that the 
argument of both Senators that we 
shall be paying the penalty ourselves 
by putting on these provisions does 
not apply. The prohibition upon wood, 
which the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Brown] is so desirous of having 
come from Canada, is almost certain. 
so that wood will not come here. 
What we say to Canada Is, "If you 
will not let your wood come here" — 
and according to the contention of 
both Senators, it is desirable and nec- 
essary that it should come for our 
paper mills — "if you will not let your 
paper come here, you must pay a little 
higher duty upon pulp and upon pa- 
per." That is the whole proposition. 
Mr. CLAPP. Mr. President, without 
certainly meaning any sarcasm — for I 
believe the American public are con- 
fronted with a serious proposition in 
their trade relations with Canada — it 
still does seem to me that we are cut- 
ting off our nose to spite our face. If 
Canada prohibits the exportation of an 
article, certainly the imposition by the 
American Government of a duty will 
cut no figure. If, instead of prohibit- 
ing the exportation, they simply put 
on an export duty, which adds to the 
cost of it — still, if we are to use that 
at all, the addition of an import duty 
upon our part would simply add to the 
burden of our own people. It seems 
to me that we are there confronted 
with a proposition w^here we are not 
even candid with Canada, and we can 
not meet her with that kind of legis- 
lation. 

An Added Duty to Prevent the Prohibition 
of Exports. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from 
Minnesota, from my standpoint, does 
not quite appreciate the purpose and 
effect of the amendment. He is speak- 
ing of logs as though we were putting 
a duty on logs to prevent the making 
of a prohibition in Canada against 
their exportation; but that is not the 
purpose. We are simply saying to 
Canada: "If you refuse to allow logs 
or pulp wood to be sent to the United 
Slates at all" — there is no question 
hero about a duty on either — "if you 
refuse to have logs and pulp wood 
sent to the United States at all, then. 
If you send the products of your own 



I 



I 



ALDIUCII. CLAPP. 



359 



logs to the United States, you must 
pay a little higher rate of duty upon 
the products" — not upon the logs. It 
does not touch the question of pulp 
wood or of wood at all; it is not a 
question of wood. If they say they 
will not send any spruce to the 
United States, which the Senator from 
Minnesota and the Senator from Ne- 
braska say it Is necessary for us to 
have for use in the mills of the 
United States, then they pay a little 
higher duty on the products of that 
wood when manufactured in their own 
country. It strikes me that that is 
not a proposition which is an unfair 
one. We do not propose to put a pro- 
hibition upon either pulp or upon pa- 
per or any of the products of w^ood. 
We simply say, "You will pay a little 
higher duty if you do that." 

Mr. CLAPP. I understand that, and 
stated that, in this connection, I was 
dealing with the question involved in 
toth these paragraphs of the bill. 
Canada can only avail herself of the 
Tight to say that she. will either pro- 
hibit or tax exportations upon the 
ground that she has those products 
cheaper than w^e have; otherwise, to 
attempt to prevent their exportation 
"would be an absurdity. That is where 
Canada has the advantage of us in this 
matter. Canada says, "We shall pro- 
hibit the exportation of pulp or pulp 
wood." We sa3', "If you do that, we 
will prohibit the importation of your 
paper." 

We Would Not Prohibit Paper from Can- 
ada. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, no. 

Mr. CLAPP. Before we get through 
-we do. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, no; we do not. 
We simply say, "You will pay a little 
iilgher duty." 

Mr. CLAPP. Exactly. I understand 
that. 

Mr. ALDRICH. And the higher duty 
Is a duty which is less than the aver- 
age revenue duty imposed by this bill. 

Mr. CLAPP. That may be, Mr. Pres- 
ident, but we have to get right back 
to the proposition that we have fixed 
a duty upon print paper which we 
believe, especially in view of the exi- 
gencies of the situation, is a Protective 
duty upon American print paper. If 
vre go beyond that, we go beyond the 



limit of a Protective duty; and while 
we attempt to punish Canada for pro- 
hibiting or taxing the exportation of 
her wood and pulp, the only way we 
get at it is, in the last analysis, by 
adding to the cost that we pay for 
our own paper. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I 
Btill think the Senator Is mistaken 
about this provision. Let me recall It 
to him again in detail. 

We will assume that it Is desirable 
to have the logs and pulp wood iin- 
ported from Canada to the United 
States; we will assume that the Sen- 
ator from Nebraska is correct, that 
the Senator from South Dakota is cor- 
rect, that the Senator from Minnesota 
is correct, and that it is desirable to 
continue the importation of wood from 
Canada into the United States. 

We Are Confronted witfi tfie Proposition 

that a prohibition will be established 
against sending any wood to the 
United States. We say to Canada, "If 
you remove your prohibition against 
the importation into the United States, 
or the exportation to the United 
States, of wood and logs, we will ad- 
mit mechanically ground wood pulp 
free into the United States; but if you 
insist upon that prohibition, we ask 
that you shall pay an additional duty; 
if you are going to try to force into 
Canada this business of producing 
pulp, then we ask you to pay a little 
higher duty when these goods are 
brought into the United States," 
amounting, as I have said, in the ag- 
gregate to only one-sixth of a cent a 
pound, which is less than the average 
of the "revenue duties," so called, im- 
posed by this bill. That is all there Is 
in this provision except this — and that 
was the House proviso, and it is In 
the existing law — if they pay an ex- 
port bounty on pulp, as they are do- 
ing indirectly to a certain extent, that 
the amount of the export bounty shall 
be added to the duty. That is all 
there is to It. This Is 

Provision for Reciprocity Treatment, 

you might say a retaliatory provision, 
if you please, in which we simply say 
to Canada, "If you will not continue 
to allow logs to come to the United 
States; that is, if you insist upon your 
prohibition, you then must pay, not 
an additional duty upon logs, but upon 



360 



ALDRICH. SMITH. BURTON. 



the products which you are trying to 
force us to use from Canada;" and 
we only make a very small penalty in 
the way of a retaliatory duty. 

... In dealing- with the Dominion of 
Canada we have to deal with the Do- 
minion government. We make our 
Tariff with reference to the Dominion 
government; and if any part of the 
Dominion of Canada does anything 
that Is against our interests, we have 
a right to retaliate, if we see fit. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. This ques- 
tion suggests itself to me: The Sen- 
ator from Minnesota says that some 
Province or some subdivision holding 
crown lands may put an export duty 
or license fee upon the exported ar- 
ticle. 

Now, that could not inure to the 
advantage of that subdivision or Prov- 
ince, because any export duty that 
was to be realized from the exporta- 
tion of this product must find its way 
into the general Dominion treasury, 
and not into the treasury of the Prov- 
ince imposing the restriction. There- 
fore, as a subdivision could not profit 
by a restriction, and could find a mar- 
ket for its product, I can not believe 
that It would not act in harmony with 
the Dominion government. 

I desire to make it easy to supply 
pulp wood to the paper manufacturers 
ot this country, for the purpose of re- 
taining the manufacture here. The 
diminishing supply of material suit- 
able for that purpose is recognized by 
everyone. It is recognized even by 
the Senator from Rhode Island in his 
substitute, and the desirability of en- 
larging the field from which to draw 
this material is impressed upon us 
all. Therefore, if the effect of this 
substitute is to make it easy for pa- 
per manufacturers to get the pulp 
wood free, I desire to see it ratified. 

Mr. ALDRICH. That is certainly the 
purpose of the committee. . . . 

Depends Upon the President's Interpreta- 
tion. 

If I was certain that all these 
questions would be taken up by the 
President under the maximum and 
minimum provisions which the com- 
mittee have adopted and hope the Sen- 
ate will adopt, I certainly would be 
In favor of removing all these duties. 
But the trouble Is, I am not certain 



whether the prohibition on exporta- 
tions, applicable, of course, to all 
countries, would be held by the Presi- 
dent of the United States to be un- 
duly discriminatory against the In- 
terests of the United States. That Is 
the whole proposition. If the lawyers 
of the Senate are able to assure me 
that that question could and would 
properly come up under the maximum 
and minimum provisions, I certainly 
should prefer that we should go Into 
negotiations with the Canadian gov- 
ernment rather than to adopt specific 
retaliatory duties under this act. 



Let the Criminal Courts and Not the 
Tariff Deal with the Trust Ques= 
tion. 

From the Congressional Record of June 19, 
1909. 

THEODORE E. BURTON, of Ohio! I 
liave performed my duties as a Repre- 
sentative or a Senator here without 
keeping track of the criminal prose- 
cutions in the country; and I would 
say that the Senator from Indiana 
himself intimated that this Is a ques- 
tion for the courts rather than for 
Congress. If they are violators of the 
law, let them be punished by the law. 
If there is ground for action against 
them in the courts, let the courts take 
action. 

I think, Mr. President, we have had 
a little too much of this style of ar- 
gument when duties are under con- 
sideration here. If anyone desires to 
lower a duty or raise a duty or ad- 
vance any wish of his, he can come in 
here and shout with clenched fists: 
"Trust!" "Monopoly!" "Octopus!" Per- 
haps he might go on with all the rest 
of the animals, and very likely they 
have just as little to do with the busi- 
ness under consideration as any of the 
animals that inight be mentioned. 

I submit that this Is a question not 
for settlement here In this Chamber, 
but In the courts, where judgments 
upon violations of the law belong. I 
have no commission here to defend 
this corporation, except that It Is one 
of the best manufacturing establish- 
ments In the United States, and one 
of the most progressive, and I cer- 
tainly am entitled to ask for them a 
fair hearing. There should not, with- 
out such hearing, be projected here In 



CLAPP. WARREN. BORAH. 



361 



the midst of these proceedings an at- 
tack upon their manner of doing- busi- 
ness and a motion that a duty be low- 
ered which might bring upon them 
serious loss, cripple their operations, 
and cripple an American Industry. 



In the Main the Solution of the Trust 
Problem Will Not Be Found in a 
Tariff Schedule. 

From the Congressional Record of June 19, 
1909. 

MOSES E. CLAPP, of Minnesota. I 
do not like to indulge in criticism, but 
I want to say that In all human his- 
tory there never has been such abso- 
lute, Inexcusable greed as is shown 
to-day in some of these great com- 
binations — not a struggle for their 
own existence, not a struggle In hon- 
est competition with competitors, but, 
after stifling competitor after com- 
petitor, going on with merciless stroke 
to strike down simply that they may 
add to possessions beyond all human 
power of enjoyment or even hardly 
the concept of possession itself. That 
relation is sustained to this question 
of hides, and I am proud to stand on 
this floor and to represent in part a 
people who are ready to bear their 
share of the sacrifice, if necessary, to 
rescue this country from that domina- 
tion. 

I have not participated in, nor have 
I looked with leniency upon, a propo- 
sition so often Injected into this de- 
bate, of trading this thing or that 
thing, this section or that section, in a 
sort of compromise upon this measure. 
We have got to recognize here the 
principle of the greatest good for and 
to the greatest number. While it may 
be said that this proposition will, in 
a measure and to a certain degree, 
and in some remote instances, perhaps, 
lessen the profits of the man who pro- 
duces stock In this country, yet, after 
studying this question fairly and dili- 
gently, I am thoroughly of the opin- 
ion that, in so far as it may possibly 
curtail the power and the profits of 
this trust, the benefit, when averaged 
to the American people, will exceed 
any possible loss. 

Mr. WARREN. To what trust does 
the Senator from Minnesota allude? 



There are several to which he might 
allude. 

Mr. CLAPP. There are several 
trusts, and I will say 

Mr. WARREN. I hope the Senator 
will, in his remarks, remember all of 
the trusts interested In this particular 
product. 

Mr. CLAPP. Mr. President, I was 
going to say we should be fair, and 
while it seems to me we should take 
the duty from hides. I am not so clear 
but that in taking the duty from hides 
perhaps some one else than the ulti- 
mate user of the product of hides may 
be the beneficiary. 

Free Hides Would Lessen the Power of 
the Beef Trust. 

Mr. BORAH. Do I understand the 
drift of the Senator's argument to be 
that free hides would serve the trusts 
or would cripple the trusts? 

Mr. CLAPP. The allowing of free 
hides will undoubtedly, in my opinion, 
lessen the power of one great trust — 
that which we call the "Beef Trust." 

Mr. BORAH. Then, do I understand 
the Senator's argument to be that by 
Tariff legislation we can affect the 
trusts one way or another? 

Mr. CLAPP. Mr. President, If the 
Senator from Idaho had been In the 
Chamber, he would have heard mo 
say that I quite agree that in the main 
I do not think perhaps the solution of 
the trust problem will be found in a 
Tariff schedule; but, nevertheless, that 
there may be times, there may be in- 
stances, and there may be conditions, 
where Tariff legislation bears an inti- 
mate relation to the prosperity, tli'^ 
power, and the monopoly of trusts. 

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I wa^? 
in the Chamber when the Senator from 
Minnesota made that statement; but I 
did not understand the effect of the 
phrase "in the main," because I did 
not understand how, in any measure, 
or at all, you were going to affect 
the trusts by Tariff legislation. That 
statement has been made many times 
upon the floor of the Senate In the last 
few weeks. I am not criticising the 
Senator from Minnesota, but I have 
not yet been able to ascertain in what 
respect and how we are going to do 
the work. 

Mr. CLAPP. I was proceeding to at- 
tempt to show Its relation to this par- 
ticular Industry. ' 



362 



BORAH. CLAPP. WARREN. 



President Roosevelt on the Tariff as a 
Remedy for Trusts. 

Mr. BORAH. Would it interfere 
with the Senator from Minnesota if I 
should read him a statement by one 
of the leaders of our party with refer- 
ence to the effect of the Tariff upon 
the trusts? 

Mr. CLAPP. It would not interfere 
with me at all. I have been reading 
and hearing- those things for some- 
time. 

Mr. BORAH. Then, I want to read 
this to the Senator. I think it comes 
from one who has won some" distinc- 
tion in that fight. He said: 

One point we must steadily keep in 
mind. The question of Tariff revision, 
speaking broadly, stands wholly apart 
from the question of dealing with the 
trusts. No change in Tariff duties can 
have any substantial effect in solving the 
so-called "trust problem." Certain great 
trusts of great corporations are wholly 
unaffected by the Tariff. Practically all 
the others that are of any importance 
have, as a matter of fact, numbers of 
smaller American competitors; and of 
course a change in the Tariff which would 
work injury to the large corporation 
would work not merely injury, but de- 
struction to its smaller competitors; and 
equally, of course, such a change would 
mean disaster to all the wage-workers 
connected with either the large or the 
small corporations. From the standpoint 
of those interested in the solution of the 
trust problem, such a change would 
therefore merely mean that the trust 
was relieved of the competition of its 
weaker American competitors and thrown 
into competition only with foreign com- 
petitors, and that the first effort to meet 
this new competition would be made by 
cutting down wages, and would therefore 
be primarily at the cost of labor. In the 
case of some of our greatest trusts such 
a change might confer upon them a posi- 
tive benefit. Speaking broadly, it is evi- 
dent that the changes in the Tariff will 
affect the trusts for weal or for woe 
simply as they affect the whole country. 
The Tariff affects trusts only as it af- 
fects all other interests. It makes all 
these interests, large or small, profitable; 
and its benefits can be taken from the 
large only under penalty of taking them 
from the small also. 

The Senator from Minnesota will, of 
course, recognize that as a speech de- 
livered by ex-President Roosevelt In 
the Senator's own State, and at a 
time, I presume, when the Senator was 
with the President. 

Free-Trade Would Not Do in the Case of 
All Trusts. 

Mr. CLAPP. Mr. President, without 
any egotism or any reflection upon 



ex-President Roosevelt, I recognize it„ 
with the exception of one single word,, 
as the speeches and utterances of Re- 
publicans indiscriminately and every- 
where. Perhaps he has put it a little- 
better than I have been able to put it 
a hundred times on the stump, with 
the exception of one word there, and' 
that word means everything. When 
any man says, speaking of problems 
as broad and as complex as the Amer- 
ican economic problems, that no 
change can effect a given result, he 
is careless and indiscriminate in the 
use of language, because there are 
exceptions to all rules, and, I contend, 
this is an exception. More than that, 
at the very outset of my remarks, I 
pointed out the distinction between 
the ordinary trust, where the problem 
involves a Tariff upon a distinct ar- 
ticle, produced as a distinct article,, 
and a problem like the one in hand,, 
where it involves a Tariff upon prac- 
tically and incident to a greater pro- 
duction. It is true that if the United 
States Steel Company, for instance, ab- 
solutely required a duty to maintain 
its operations in this country, then to 
strike the duty off the article which 
that institution produces would not 
solve the trust problem, only in so far 
as it might produce chaos and disaster 
to an American industry; but if in a 
struggle between two corporations or 
trusts — and I may as well use the lat- 
ter word — one of those trusts gets a 
great advantage over the other be- 
cause that particular article is Pro- 
tected, and yet the Protection upon 
that article does not involve the life 
or the vitality or the endurance of 
the trust, the removal of that duty Is 
in the interest of competition and not 
destructive to any business condition 
or American economic or industrial 
energy. The Beef Trust gets this ad- 
vantage. 

When the Farmers Were in the Clutches 
of the Leather Trust. 

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, the 
Senator from Minnesota has evi- 
dently well stored his mind with in- 
formation on this subject, and while 
speaking of trusts, including the Meat 
Trust and the liCather Tru.st. T should 
like to have him give me some expla- 
nation of this fact: When we were 
in the clutches of the Leather Trust, 



I 



WARREN. DIXON. LODGE. CLAPP. 



863 



and before complaint had been made 
of the Beef Trust, and before the en- 
actment of the Dingley law, hides in 
Chicago were 4 cents. I have the 
statement of the Boot and Shoe Re- 
corder to prove that. They were so 
cheap that in remote places the farm- 
ers could not ship them to market, be- 
cause the hides would not bring even 
the freight charges upon them. As I 
have said, we were then in the 
clutches of the Leather Trust, com- 
posed of hundreds of tanneries. Since 
the time the Beef Trust is alleged to 
have taken up the matter of hides, the 
prices have advanced, and the farmer 
gets the benefit of that advance; and 
yet those consumers who buy shoes 
pay exactly the same price for shoes 
that they did then and before that 
time. 

I should like to have the Senator 
show me and show the Senate to what 
trust he proposes to pay his respects 
and to what trust he thinks we should 
turn our attention and destroy. I 
should like to have him tell us, fur- 
thermore, how he is g.oing to prevent 
the Meat Trust going to South Amer- 
ica and buying hides and tanning them 
on the Atlantic coast, if that trust 
wishes to do so, the same as the 
Leather Trust does. 

It seems to me that If we can get 
the trusts by the ears and competing 
against each other, so that both the 
producer and the consumer can have 
good results — the producer a higher 
rate and the consumer a lower, or, at 
least, no higher rate — then we had 
better permit the two trusts to go on 
In the laudable work of competing 
with each other, instead of surrender- 
ing one to the other, as the Senator's 
remarks would seem to Indicate. 

No; They Would Not Agree to That. 

Mr. DIXON. Will the Senators from 
Minnesota and Massachusetts agree, 
then, if we put hides on the free list, 
to put leather and manufactured prod- 
ucts of leather on the free list? 

Mr. LODGE. It would be exactly 
like putting paper on the free list be- 
cause you put pulp logs on the free 
list. 

Mr. DIXON. Not In the least de- 
gree. 

Mr. LODGE. Why not? One Is the 
raw material of the other. 

Mr. DIXON. Does the Senator from 



Massachusetts, whom we have fol- 
lowed patiently through all these 
Tariff discussions, say, as a Repub- 
lican, that hides should go on the free 
list and at the same time maintain the 
duty on leather? 

Mr. LODGE. No; I do not say that. 

Mr. DIXON. And leather products? 

Mr. LODGE. I say the duties on 
leather should be reduced; and they 
are. 

A Question of Consistency. 

Mr. DIXON. The Senator from 
Massachusetts does not answer my 
question. Is there any consistency in 
the attitude of the Senator from Min- 
nesota or that of the Senator from 
Massachusetts? 

Mr. CLAPP. I beg the Senator's 
pardon. Another Senator can not an- 
swer as to my consistency. I will my- 
self answer as to that. 

Mr. LODGE. The Senator from 
Minnesota will take care of himself, 
and I will take care of the Inconsis- 
tency part when I get the floor. 

Mr. DIXON. All right. I will ad- 
dress my remarks specifically to the 
Senator from Minnesota. Is there any 
consistency in advocating the taking 
of the duty off of hides, which 5,000,- 
000 farmers in this country pro- 
duce 

Mr. CARTER. Nine million. 

Mr. DIXON. I will accept the sug- 
gestion of my colleague — which 9,000,- 
000 farmers in this country produce, 
and at the same time maintain any 
duty on leather or Its products? 

How the Tanning industry increased Un- 
der Dutiable Hides. 

Mr. WARREN. As to the tanners, 
the number of establishments in 1880 
was 5,628. This, it will be observed, 
was before the time of the Tariff. The 
number of tanners in 1890, ten years 
of free hides, had been reduced from 
5,628 to 1,787, and there was no talk 
In those days about the Meat Trust. 
The "Meat Trust," so called, was not 
then tanning any hides. The capital 
Invested in 1880 was a little over $73,- 
000,000, and It increased in that ten 
years to about $98,000,000, an Increase 
under free hides of something over 
?24,000,000, or about two and a half 
millions per year. 

Now, starting from 1900, after there 
had been a duty put upon hides, and 



364 



WARREN. McCUMBER. LODGE. 



running up to 1905 — and I quote 1905 
and 1900 so that we may have the 
official figures of the United States 
census — we find that, while the In- 
crease under free hides had been but 
two and a half million dollars a year, 
under dutiable hides, in the five years 
from 1900 to 1905 it had been thirteen 
and a half millions a year. In other 
words, the tanning industry Increased 
over four times as fast under dutiable 
hides as under free hides. The value 
of the product from 1880 to 1890, ten 
3'^ears of free hides, had been reduced 
from two hundred million and some- 
thing to a hundred and seventy-two 
million and something, showing a de- 
crease In ten years of over $28,000,000. 

Mr. CLAPP. What ten years? 

Mr. WARREN. The ten years from 
1880 to 1890, when hides were free. 
Instead of a decrease of $28,000,000 
we have here an increase In the next 
five years of over $48,500,000 to the 
credit and success of the tanners, un- 
der dutiable hides. 

They Prove Too Much. 

I think this is particularly apropos 
just now. I have In my hand the 
Boot and Shoe Recorder. It Is the 
official paper of the boot and shoe and 
tanning interests; and not only that, 
but this is a special issue. Of course 
you will notice it Is yellow — merely 
a coincidence, perhaps. 

But It devotes an entire page to the 
Senate and House of Representatives, 
and It Is the boot and shoe and tan- 
ning interests' direct communication 
to us. Now, as to the duty on hides 
and whether it benefits the farmer or 
not, let us see what they say. They 
are undertaking to prove that it does 
not, and they prove too much. They 
say: 

Prior to the Dingley Act the price of 
packers' cow hides was 4 cents; to-day it 
is 13% cents. 

Does the raiser of hides in the 
Western country get any benefit from 
the difference between 4 cents and 
13% cents; and if not, why not? I 
want to tell the Senator that during 
the period of free hides there was a 
group of States in which hides were 
hauled out and burled. The farmers 
there paid the duty on the harness 
worn by their horses, upon which 45 
uer cent Tariff is imposed, and they 
paid 25 per cent duty upon boots and 



shoes worn by themselves while carry- 
ing those hides out for burial, because 
the Leather Trust in the East bore 
down on the price of hides and would 
pay the packers In Chicago but 3. and 
4 cents. Therefore, and for that rea- 
son, the packers have gone Into the 
business of tanning the hides, and 
have resurrected the farmers' values 
on hides. That fact and the Dingley 
law have put the far Western farmers 
and cattlemen where they have been 
able to get some profit from the raising 
of cattle where they had none before. 



The Farmer Is Entitled to the Same 
Protection That the Manufacturer 
Is Entitled To. 

From the Congressional Record of June jg, 
1909. 
PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North 
Dakota. The farmer, before he starts 
to produce the hide, must Invest a 
very large sum of money in the land; 
that Is, his machinery. He must then 
plow that land; he must open up the 
farm. He must buy plows and har- 
rows and tools. He must then plow 
his land. He must harrow it. He 
must raise his hay. He must dry that 
hay; he must stack It; he must bring 
It to his barn; and then for five long 
years, on the average, he must put 
that through the maws of a steer and 
convert It into a hide. If that Is not 
a manufactured hide, requiring not 
only the process of years of labor, 
but also the investment of capital, 
then I would not know what you 
would call a manufactured article on 
the basis of labor going Into the pro- 
duction of the article. If the farmer 
Is entitled to the same Protection 
that the manufacturer is entitled to, 
then the product which he has manu- 
factured should have a duty on it com- 
mensurate with the difference in the 
cost of its production and the cost of 
the production of that hide fh South 
America. 



Blaine and McKinley Did Not Favor 
a Protective Tariff on Hides. 

From tlie Congressional Record of June 2i, 
1909. 
HENRY CABOT LODGE, of Massa- 
chusetts. My object Is simply to give 



LODGE. WARREN. DIXON. 



365 



the history of the dutj' on hides. There 
was a duty of 10 per cent in 1861. It 
was put on in war time, when they 
put a tax on everything in order to 
raise money from every possible 
source. 

In 1872 the hide duty was removed. It 
was left free in the Tariffs of 1875, 1883, 
1890, and 1894. 

Mr. WARREN. I was under the im- 
pression that in 1890 there was the im- 
position of a cent and a half a pound 
under certain conditions on the importa- 
tions from certain countries. 

Mr, LODGE. That was one of the reci- 
procity provisions. I should not say this 
Tariff imposes a duty on tea and coffee 
because under the maximum and mini- 
mum, under certain conditions, it might 
be imposed. It never was imposed, as a 
matter of fact. 

Mr. WARREN. I think the Senator 
will find it was necessary later to ex- 
cept certain contracts that had been 
made that were being carried out un- 
der that provision. 

Mr. LODGE. No duties were col- 
lected under it. At tha-t time the ques- 
tion was mooted of putting a duty on 
hides, and Mr. Blaine, who was then 
Secretary of State, wrote a letter to 
Mr. McKinley, who was chairman of 
the Ways and Means Committee, April 
10, 1890. 

April 10, 1890. 

Dear Mr. McKinley: It is a great mis- 
take to take hides from the free list, 
where they have been for so many years. 
It is a slap in the face to the South 
Americans, with whom we are trying to 
enlarge our trade. It will benefit the 
farmer by adding 5 to 8 per cent to the 
price of his children's shoes. It will jaeld 
a profit to the butcher only, the last man 
that needs it. The movement is injudi- 
cious from beginning to end, in every 
form and phase. Pray stop it before it 
sees light. Such movements as this for 
Protection will Protect the Republican 
party into a speedy retirement. 
Yours, hastily, 

James G. Blaine. 

Mr. McKinley so far agreed with him 
that he did not put the duty in the bill; 
and if I err as a Protectionist in my 
attitude on hides, I err in good company. 
There never have been two greater Pro- 
tectionists than Mr. Blaine and Mr. Mc- 
Kinley. 

Blaine Was Wrong in His Belief. 
Mr. DIXON. The assertion which the 
Senator from Massachusetts has just read 
from Mr. Blaine's letter was that he un- 



doubtedly believed at that time that an 
imposition of a duty on hides would raise 
the price of women's and children's shoes 
from 5 to 6 per cent, was it not? 

Mr. LODGE. That Is what he said. 

Mr. DIXON. As a matter of fact, Mr. 
Blaine was wrong in his belief that that 
would be the result, was he not? Has 
not the experience of the last twelve 
years — during which time we have had a 
duty on heavy hides which only go into 
the soles of shoes, which the shoe men 
themselves admit, but under the most 
strained construction, would add about 3 
cents to a pair of men's shoes — proved 
that Mr. Blaine was wrong in his as- 
sumption? 

Hides Free in Nearly All Countries. 

Mr. LODGE. But, Mr. President, this 
general policy of the United States of 
leaving hides upon the free list has sim- 
ply been the policy of all countries with 
large industrial establishments. Hides 
are free to-day, of course, in Great Brit- 
ain and Ireland, which is a Free-Trade 
country, but they are also free in Aus- 
tria-Hungary, in Canada, in Denmark, in 
France, in Germany, in Italy, in the Neth- 
erlands, in Norway, and in Sweden. All 
of those countries are countries with more 
or less high Protection. Germany has 
a high Protective Tariff, but they leave 
hides free. They believe it is of great 
importance to their industries that they 
should be free. The countries in which 
hides are dutiable are Australia, which is 
an exporting country; Cuba, Greece, Ja- 
pan, Mexico, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, 
and Turkey, practically none of them, 
except Japan, being industrial nations. 

The reason for that policy, Mr. Presi- 
dent, is that the supply of hides is not 
sufficient in any of those countries for 
the consumption. For instance, in Eng- 
land, France, and Germany, there is less 
than one head of cattle to each three of 
population. That of itself indicates the 
necessity of giving every opportunity to 
secure hides and skins required for the 
leather industry. 

Boot and Shoe Industry Has Greatly In- 
creased with Protected Hides. 

Mr. DIXON. The Senator from Massa- 
chusetts says that we are making shoes 
cheaper and better than they are mad© 
anywhere else in the world. 

Mr. LODGE. I believe so. 

Mr. DIXON. And this condition has 
taken place under the small duty of 15 



366 



DIXON. LODGE. CARTER. WARREN:/ 



per cent on hides, from which elone sole 
leather is made. 

Mr. LODGE. It was built up by twen- 
ty-five years of free hides. 

Mr. DIXON. I ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts if, since the day that the 
15 per cent duty was put on heavy cattle 
hides — which only go into sole leather — 
if the exports of shoes and boots from 
the United States have not increased from 
1897, when the duty went on, from $1,- 
700,000 to over $11,000,000 last year. 

Mr. LODGE. That is perfectly true. 

Mr. DIXON. An increase of nearly 800 
per cent. 

Mr. LODGE. And the exports of sole 
leather have decreased. 

Mr. DIXON. I beg to differ with the 
Senator from Massachusetts as to the 
exports of sole leather. The importer 
paying a 15 per cent duty, and having a 
rebate to him on the duty absolutely can 
go into the market in competition with 
the world, because the duty he pays on 
Argentine hides is returned to him when 
he exports. 

Mr. LODGE. Certainly. 

Mr. DIXON. Then will the Senator 
from Massachusetts agree to the propo- 
sition that, if we put hides on the free 
list, we shall also put sole leather and 
boots and shoes in the same class and 
we will all vote for it? 

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I will 
agree to put boots and shoes and sole 
leather on the free list if the Senate will 
vote to put paper on the free list, because 
wood pulp and pulp wood and logs, which 
are its raw material, are there, and if 
they will also agree to put on the free 
list all the lumber because they let saw 
logs in free. 

Arguing for Free Raw Material. 

Mr. DIXON. But the Senator is argu- 
ing for free raw material. I think the 
Senator from Texas [Mr. Bailey] enun- 
ciated a principle the other day that Is 
absolutely unassailable. The minute you 
say to the producer of the raw material 
"we will not Protect your product but 
will Protect the manufactured product" — 
when you teach that to the people of this 
country and write it into the law, that 
day, I think, strikes the death knell to 
the Protective Tariff system in the 
United States. I know how difficult it is 
for men, under pressure from home and 
the various localities that are affected 
sometimes adversely, not to yield. 

All of us have voted for schedules in 



this bill that in some respects may have 
been adverse to the communities in which 
we live. The inconsistencies of which the 
Senator from Massachusetts speaks are 
the weaknesses of this Tariff bill. The 
fewer inconsistencies we have the better. 
We want to be prepared to go to the 
country and say that we have passed a 
Tariff bill "on the square" that recog- 
nizes all sections and all industries. 

Uniess the Farmer /s Protected There Will 
Be No Protection. 

Mr. CARTER. I ask the Senator if he 
will not concede that the Tariff duties 
provided by the Wilson Act injuriously 
affected the manufacturing interests of 
New England? 

Mr. LODGE. They injuriously affected 
the manufacturing interests of the entire 
country. 

Mr. CARTER. I call the attention of 
the Senator to the fact that no Protective 
Tariff bill would have been written on 
the statute books of this country for 
the last twenty years had it not been for 
the votes of the States especially inter- 
ested in Protecting these ranchmen and 
farmers. 

The Senator may as well now and 
henceforth understand that if everything 
we produce in the West and on the farms 
of this country is to be regarded by the 
manufacturers as a raw material, then 
the day has dawned when this system 
must fall. The Senator may as well take 
into account the fact that the farmer who 
sells the hide of the steer in open com- 
petition in the hide market of the world 
will no longer continue to pay a duty on 
the harness he puts on the horse or the 
shoes he puts on his feet. 

Packers Are Not Asking for a Duty on 
Hides. 

Mr. WARREN. The Protective-Tariff 
policy is upon the theory that it will Pro- 
tect and raise the price oftentimes to the 
producer, and the best part of it is that 
generally it does not raise the price to 
the ultimate consumer. There is not in 
all the history of the Protective Tariff so 
plain a case as this one is. The Tarift 
upon hides has never cost the consumer 
of shoes or leather a penny, and yet It 
has added to the farmer sufl!icient to 
enable him to raise the price of hides. 
He formerly could get nothing for them 
in some of the remote sections of the 
country. It increases his profit and greatly 



WARREN. BEVERiDGE. I.ODGE3. 



367 



Enlarges the number 6f cattle to keep up 
with the growth of population here. As 
1 said, whatever that difference is it Is 
absorbed in between; If the Senator 
thinks the shoe manufacturers are reap- 
ing the whole benefit he is simply mis- 
taken. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. That is to say. it is 
taken out partly from the pockets of 
the tanner, and in this case it happens to 
be the packers, and it is taken out of the 
pockets ot other manufacturers. If that 
were true it would seem Sti^atige that 
the packers are the people who are most 
earnestly demanding a Tariff on hides: 

Mr. WARREN. There is no packer in 
the United States who has said a word 
here on the subject or who has made any 
such application. The Senator is mis- 
taken: The packers are not here asking 
for a duty ori hideS; I challenge the Sen- 
ator to produce any evidence of that kind. 

Fear that Independent Farmers Would Be 
Put Out of Business. 

Mr. LODGE. I want to say only a few 
words more in conclusion. I have spoken 
thus far about the shoe manufacturers. 
I want to say a word about the tanners. 
It is the tanners who are most seriously 
hurt. Their industry is very greatly af- 
fected. There is no doubt in my mind 
that there are a thousand tanneries scat- 
tered around the country which are being 
gradually extinguislred by the packers, 
and that movement is progressing. I 
have here a list of the tanneries which 
have been taken possession of by the 
Chicago packers alone, and it shows a 
total of over 30 tanneries in 11 different 
States. I think they are going to put the 
independent tanners out of business. I 
think the two combinations in leather, 
the American and the United States 
leather companies are bound to enter into 
combination with or be absorbed by the 
packers. I believe that the entire tanning 
business is destined to fall into the hands 
of the packers, and'^under one great con- 
cern. 

It is because I think that the inde- 
pendent tanners will be put out of exist- 
ence, and to give them an opportunity in 
the world's market would save the indus- 
try from the course on which it is now 
going, that I feel a- great and especial 
interest in this schedule. If I believed 
that this duty went into the pockets of 
the farmers I should hesitate very long 
before I took this position. I have never 



been satisfied that it did. I honestly be- 
lieve that it does not; that, if it goes any- 
where, it Is absorbed elsewhere. For that 
reason, Mn President, I have done what I 
was very reluctant to do — made up my 
mind to-oppose the recommendation of the 
Finance Committee. 

The Prosperity of Each /s Vital to All. 

We of New England know that the wel- 
fare of California, the development of her 
industries, and the exclusion of Asiatic 
competition from her coast are as Im- 
portant to us as they are to her, and to 
all that great and noble region of our 
country; We know that the prosperity of 
Kansas and Nebraska, and of all 
the great Wheat-raising and corn- 
growing States of the West is vital 
to our prosperity. We feel more 
keenly, perhaps, than any other part of 
the country the importance of steady and 
widespread prosperity throughout the 
South, for on her great staple our largest 
industry depends. 

We have long since learned the lesson 
that our own prosperity is indissolubly 
bound up with that of all parts of our 
common country. All we ask is that the 
same feeling should be returned to us, 
and that our brethren of the other States 
should realize that in the East and in 
New England they find their best market, 
their best customers, and a great deal of 
the capital which they need for their own 
development. 

I use Massachusetts only as an example 
of New England and the East. We have 
won prosperity and we have won it 
through no chance gifts of Mother Earth, 
but solely by the brains and the energy, 
the intelligence, courage, tenacity, and 
education of our people — the naturalized 
and the adopted as well as the native 
born. We have not snarled or grumbled 
at the prosperity of any of the other 
States. We have not sought to injure or 
destroy the success of other Americans 
anywhere. We have rejoiced in it. We 
have been content to do the best we could 
under the conditions imposed by nature 
and by the legislation of the United States 
and we have succeeded and achieved a 
hard-won prosperity. Under the economic 
policies which the Government of the 
United States has adopted we have built 
up our industries and added thereby to 
the capital, the wealth, and the prosperity 
of the whole country. We do not oome 
in forma pauperis to sue for favors, or 
in the guise of robbers to plunder others 



368 



LODGE. CARTER. 



for our own benefit. We come to the 
council table of the Nation, to whose up- 
building we have contributed, with a deep 
consciousness that there is no prosperity- 
worth having which is not part of the 
Nation's prosperity, and we ask only that 
we should be dealt with according to 
our merits and that our great indus- 
trial population should receive the 
same treatment and consideration as 
that which is accorded to all Amer- 
icans in all parts of the United States. 



Free Hides Would Increase the 
Profits of the Most Gigantic 
Leather Trust the World Has Ever 
Known. 

From the Congressional Record of June zi, 
1909. 

THOMAS H. CARTER, of Montana. 
Mr. President, should I yield to my im- 
pulses in treating this subject, I would 
be content with the citation of a very 
few figures, and they would apply to 
the voting strength in this Chamber 
and the consequences to follow, 
placing this particular article on the 
free list. 

With some amazement I listened to the 
mixture of eloquence, argument, and 
apology by the senior Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr. Lodge] . I could not but 
recur to the pages of this bill over which 
we have passed and consider what had 
been done while listening to what he said. 
In this bill we have Protected every 
product of New England and the East- 
ern States generally, whether of wood, 
or iron, or cotton, or wool, or any of 
the great staples entering into daily con- 
sumption in all avenues of life. Of course, 
all products of the hides of animals are 
Protected according to the judgment of 
those engaged in the business to the 
measure of Protection required. 

Not content with Protecting the print- 
paper pulp, not content with Protecting 
cotton and woolen goods and cutlery and 
all manufactures of iron, we actually 
were called upon by the senior Senator 
from Massachusetts to stop an inunda- 
tion of eels coming in as a supposed 
product of the pauper labor of Europe. 
The call for Protection came from all 
along the New England coast, and 
strange to say, we from the Rocky 
Mountain States, who have never seen 
an eel except when visiting the seacoast. 



voted to put a duty on eels; and tlien in 
order that no raw material might escape, 
we actually went up to Vermont and put 
a duty on the sap running out of the 
maple trees. If you can point to any- 
thing manufactured or produced along 
the northeastern coast that is not pro- 
vided for by some kind of Protection in 
this bill, I am sure some Senator from 
that vigilant New England band will 
come forward to offer a rate of specific 
duty for its Protection. 

Protection for Almost Everything. 

We are called upon to put a duty on 
the combination of sand and natural gas, 
the one found in the channel of the 
stream and the other flowing out 
of the earth, as the raw material 
of glass. This raw material is to 
be Protected, and the Protection increases 
when it reaches certain forms of plate 
glass. The knife we use to skin the 
beef is subject to a Protective duty; the 
shoes the farmer wears you will find in 
this same bill with a Protective duty; 
the harness on the horse, the saddle upon 
which the farmer rides, are all Protected 
amply; yet the senior Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr. Lodge] rises in this 
Chamber to echo the voice of a propa- 
ganda which had its origin not in a de- 
sire to alleviate the sufferings of any 
class of people, not to cheapen a neces- 
sity of life, not to give another day's 
labor to any human being, but to in- 
crease the already swollen profits of the 
most gigantic leather trust the world has 
ever known. 

It may be well to take into account the 
ar^^uments used. It has been suggested 
that if we take the 15 per cent duty off 
of hides, the laborer making the shoes 
will be paid a little more, the farmer 
will buy his shoes cheaper, and then the 
retail merchant can make a better profit. 
The Senator from Massachusetts readily 
concedes that the industry of making 
shoes, the making of harness, and all the 
products of leather is generally in a pros- 
perous condition. It is useless to argue 
otherwise, because it is a notorious fact 
that greater progress has been made In 
this line of industry than in any other of 
all the chief industries of the country. 

A Confidence Game on the Farmer. 

Mr. President, the raising of cattle is 
a great industry, widely scattered over 
the country. The farmers are about 9,- 
000,000 in number, and, counting five to 



CARTER. BROWN. 



369 



the family, there are between forty and 
fifty million people raising cattle, to a 
greater or less extent, on the farms large 
and small. To these people the crusaders 
for free hides present these arguments: 
"First, you will get the products of labor 
cheaper; you do not get the benefit of 
the present duty anyhow; you are cheated 
out of it by the packers; and the best 
thing for you. Reuben, is to take this 15 
per cent out of the equation and let the 
hides you have to sell go on the free 
list, while we keep all the things you have 
to buy that are made of leather on the 
dutiable list." 

If a confidence man at a circus ever 
presented a less plausible proposition to 
a farmer than that, he certainly was 
wanting in wit. [Laughter.] 

The farmer has been the victim of many 
curious games of confidence, but never 
before has his intelligence been so dis- 
counted as in that form of presenting this 
argument: "First, the duty does you 
no good; we will therefore take it off; 
but the duty on leather will do the man 
who makes it some good; the duty on 
shoes will be of benefit to the manufac- 
turer of shoes; and the duty on harness 
will benefit the manufacturer of harness; 
and therefore we will leave these duties 
on; and you buy in this Protected market 
and sell in the open markets of the world 
the thing you have to sell." 

A Matter of Consistency. 

Mr. President, as representing a State 
having a large number of farmers, I 
want to sum up the position in a very 
few words; and I believe there are 22 
Senators on this floor who have with 
fidelity supported this bill who are 
prepared to say the same thing and 
act in accordance with the declara- 
tion, to wit: "If you desire that 
what the farmers have to sell shall be 
sold in the open market without any 
Protection, we shall regard it as our duty 
to see that the things they buy are bought 
where they can be bought the cheapest 
in so far as leather products are con- 
cerned." How can the Senator from Ver- 
mont [Mr. Page], whose maple sugar has 
been Protected, ask us to continue to sus- 
tain a proposition like that; or the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge] ask 
us to st^nd by the duty on eels, which 
he regards as a manufactured product, no 
doubt, while we except this great prod- 
uct, amounting to 116,000,000 a year in 
Protective duties to the farmers of the 



country from the dutiable list and 
place them in competition with the 
Argentine and other cattle raisers? 

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, in 
speaking of the farmer a moment ago, I 
did not mention the fact, which ought to 
be mentioned, that there are anywhere 
from one to two million hides called 
"fallen hides." A hide taken from an ani- 
mal that is killed by accident or dies is 
the only return the farmer gets for that 
animal. That is all he has to sell of that 
animal, which has cost him as much as 
the rest. 

If it is desired that leather and all the 
products of leather shall be free, well 
and good. The»farmers of my section will 
be content, but they will not be content 
to leave the products of the hides on the 
dutiable list while they sell in competi- 
tion with the man from the Argentine 
Republic. 

It will not answer for us to go home 
and repeat to our constituents, who 
know better, the 

Puerile and Trifling Suggestions 

here made that they receive no benefit 
from the duty on hides, and therefore It 
is just as well to take it away from 
them. They are not children. You are 
dealing with a good, husky, lusty, vigor- 
ous body of people, who know something 
about their own business and are deter- 
mined to have their rights in a general 
adjustment of affairs; and every Senator 
from that section of the country is here 
to maintain those rights. If those who 
elect to break down the Protective-Tariff 
policy persist in beginning the operation 
on the farmer they will find a resistance 
that will be most wholesome and effective. 
While I believe in the general prosperity 
brought to the country by preserving the 
American market to the American work- 
man, the farmer of the United States 
must not be excluded from the body of 
toilers entitled to the benefits, and we 
do not propose to see him excluded in this 
case. That had just as well be under- 
stood now, and for good. 



"There Should Be No Tariff on Wood 
Pulp."-=Theodore Roosevelt. 

From the Congressional Record of June 22, 

1909. 

NORRIS BROWN, of Nebraska. This 

subject is a most interesting one, yet I 

am not disposed to keep the Senate here 



B70 



BROWN. TILLMAN. FRYE. GALLINGER: 



any length of time in its disGUSslorl. 
While I do not Want to start any trouble 
In this Chamber^ t have made up my 
mind, at tM risk of starting a panic in 
this body, to read a line from a message 
sent to Congress by President Roosevelt: 

There should be no Tariff on any forest 
product grown in this country; and, In 
especial, there should be no Tariff on 
wood pulp; due notice of the change being 
of course given to thos^ engaged in the 
business, so as to 'enable them to adjust 
themselves to the new conditions. The 
t-epeal of th^ duty on wood pulp should 
If possible be accompanied by an agree- 
ment with Canada that there shall be ho 
(export duty on Canadian pulp wood. 

This 'was one of the standing and pub- 
licly declared policies of the late Presi- 
dent, Mr. Roosevelt. I call the attention 
of Republicans in this Chamber to the 
fact that the plank in the last national 
platform that won the -election for the 
presidency last year was the plank that 
pledged the Carrying out and fulfillrhent 
of the Roosevelt policiesi My friends on 
the Finance Committee and other friends 
off of that committee must not point their 
fingers at those of us who are fighting 
now to carry out one of those policies. 
We are the Republicans on this issue. 

W/'/l They Reduce the Price of Their 
Newspapers? 

Mr. TILLMAN. The Senator is here 
in the interests of free newspapers and 
is advocating free paper. Of course, I 
understand the political significance of 
that, and I wanted to know if it involves 
a terrible catastrophe to and an oblitera- 
tion of these headlights of information — 
the newspapers. If they get free paper 
from Canada, will they sell their papers 
at half a cent apiece instead of a cent, or 
will they cut the price from 3 cents down 
to 1 cent? Tell us what will be the ul- 
timate result of this. Who are the bene- 
ficiaries? 

Mr. BROWN. I will ask the Senator 
from South Carolina if these improved 
processes reduced the price of paper? 

Mr. TILLMAN. That has nothing to 
do with the case. I want to know where 
your interests lie. 

Mr. BROWN. My interest is with the 
consumers of this country. 

Mr. TILLMAN. The ultimate consumer 
is the man who buys the newspaper. 

Mr. BROWN. He is the ultimate con- 
.sumer. 
Mr. TILLMAN. The question ia 



whether he is going to get more news- 
papers for the money than he gets now. 

l\/o Reduction to the Ultimate Consumer. 

Mr. FRYE. In reply to the question 
asked by the Senator from South Carolina 
I will state that every hewspaper man 
who Was asked the question whether or 
not he would reduce the price of his paper 
with paper and pulp on the free list 
promptly replied, "No." He was then 
asked if he would reduce the price of 
advertisethents, and he said; "No." 

Humbugs and Whited Sepulchers. 

Mr. TILLMAN. Agreeing to all that 
has been so eloquently said by the Sena- 
tor from Oklahoma [Mr. Owen] the point 
with me is to find out how it is and why 
it is that the Senators on the other side 
who are so solicitous about the welfard 
of Americaii industries in Protecting them 
and looking after labor and all that kind 
of thing have found it in their hearts to 
interfere with the spread of light by 
newspapers; and, wonder on top of won- 
ders, some of these very newspapers are 
the headlights of Protection that are 
clamoring for Free-Trade for the articles 
which they use, and deny me the oppor- 
tunity to buy this coat without a Pro- 
tective Tariff, these pants, these shoes, 
everything that I have. They are hum- 
bugs and whited sepulchers — that is what 
they are. 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, only 20 per 
cent of labor in the making of paper Is 
skilled labor. The Canadians have very 
largely drawn from the States for that 
skilled labor, and they do pay for such 
labor as high wages as are paid in the 
United States; but 80 per cent of the 
labor employed in Canada receives at 
least 30 per cent less wages than labor 
does in the United States, and Mr. Mann, 
in his speech practically admitted that 
there was a difference in the cost of labor 
between the two countries. 

Paper Nowhere so Cheap as Here. 

Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator talks 
of "hold-up prices" of paper in this coun- 
try. In what other country is print paper 
as cheap as in this country? 

Mr. BROWN. I do not think they sell 
it cheaper in other coiuitries. or so cheap 
as they do here. 

Mr. GALLINGER. They do not. If the 
Senator will visit the mills of this coun- 
try we can show him a great many Cana- 
dians working in those mills. The men 



GALLINGER. BROWN. HALE. FRYE. 



371 



who go back, of whom the Senator spoke 
a little while ago, because they can live 
better in Canada and get better wages, 
go back there because they have accumu- 
lated money enough in the United States 
to enable them to go back and live in 
comfort. 

Mr. BROWN. Does the Senator want 
to be understood as contending that there 
is any substantial difference between the 
labor cost in print paper mills in Canada 
and those in the United States? 

Mr. GALLINGER. I wish to be under- 
stood exactly as saying that; and I will 
endeavor to demonstrate it in my own 
time. 



Pulp and Paper Industry Assists in 
The Conservation of the Forests. 

From the Congressional Record of June 22, 
1909. 

EUGENE HALE, of Maine. On this 
Important phase of the subject, the con- 
servation of the forests, I want to bear 
some testimony in favor of this industry, 
which to-day is so seriously attacked. I 
had never known in Maine anything like 
good husbandry and good housekeeping 
in the care of timber lands until the in- 
troduction of the pulp-paper mills and 
the accumulation of large tracts of land 
which furnish the supply largely for these 
mills. The inspection, the guardianship, 
the system- of cutting and preserving the 
smaller trees is all a part of the work 
and the management of the pulp and 
paper mills. 

Mr. FRYE. And " precautions against 
fire. 

Mr. HALE. The precautions also, as 
my colleague has said, against fire, which 
our people in a reckless way never con- 
sidered before, but always are a part and 
parcel of the general management of 
these companies that are assailed so 
fiercely here. The track of fire from rail- 
way trains, from sportsmen, from hunters, 
from tramps, does not visit the land of 
the pulp and paper companies, because 
they assume at all times the Protection 
and conservation of these great products 
of wood and lumber. 

Moreover, it is to the credit of those 
companies and their management that 
Instead of cutting and slashing broad and 
large, and clipping off and leaving waste 
thousands and tens of thousands of acres 
which they might do, they, by a careful 



conservation, supplement their supplies 
In the purchases that they make of the 
Canadian product at a sacrifice. 

I know something about this industry 
In Maine. My colleague and I know how 
they have revolutionized the care and 
conduct and preservation of the forests. 
If you legislate against them and throw 
it into the hands of their Canadian com- 
petitors, but one result is inevitable. 
They are obliged then in a short time to 
cut and sweep ofC and destroy the lands 
that they own in the State of Maine to 
do their business, and that we are seek- 
ing to Protect them from. That is a fea- 
ture which has not been thought of and 
has not been considered by many Sena- 
tors, but we know what it is in the State 
of Maine and how they are conducting 
their business and saving our forests. It 
is one of the beneficent things for which 
they should be given credit. 

Great Development of Canadian Competi- 
tion. 

But does not the Senator know that 
the development of Canada in the last 
ten or fifteen j-^ears, since the amplifica- 
tion of their great railway lines through- 
out the Dominion, has been very great, 
and that Canada is becoming a hive of 
industry and with a high Protective Tariff 
upon everything is producing the very 
articles to which the Senator has re- 
ferred, particularly steel. She is not the 
Canada of a few years ago. She is not 
dependent upon us. She is becoming not 
only a great granary, but a most formid- 
able competitor, a great manufacturing 
community, and a great commercial com- 
munity. She is a different country; Can- 
ada is not what she was twenty years 
ago. The physical advantages, instead of 
being with us, are all with Canada. She 
has immense forests untouched by the 
hand of man, lying at near approach, and 
never visited by the axe; she has water- 
ways and water power, and she has al- 
most unlimited agricultural resources, 
capable of marvelous development in the 
future. So, I repeat, the physical ad- 
vantages in this industry are all with 
Canada, and not with us. This industry 
is contending against these mighty forces 
which nature has arrayed for Canada and 
against us. This industry is fighting 
against all of these; and the Senator is 
fundamentally and profoundly wrong 
when he says that the advantges are with 
us. 



McCUMBER. 



Was There Any Reason for Protect- 
ing Hides That Would Not Apply 
to the Protection of Calfskins? 

From the Congressional Record of June 22, 
1909. 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North Da- 
kota. No argument, however specious or 
otherwise, can in the slightest degree 
obliterate the two great principles that 
are affected by this proposed amendment. 
The one is that the farmers of this coun- 
try do get a benefit of 15 per cent 
duty upon the hides. The second is 
that they would lose that 15 per cent 
benefit and that they would get noth- 
ing in return, and the leather-manu- 
facturing interests would secure the 
only benefits under this amendment. 

Mr. President, if we were to search for 
some great example to portray the limit 
of human ingratitude, we could scarcely 
find a more apt one than this attempt on 
the part of the manufacturers of leather 
and leather goods to deprive the stock- 
man and the farmer of the little rem- 
nant of Protection which has been left 
to him upon hides. 

By the Dingley law hides were given 
a Protection of 15 per cent ad valorem, a 
meager duty, indeed, Mr. President, when 
compared with other Protective duties. 
The leather-manvifacturing interests, ever 
alert to secure advantages, secured a rul- 
ing from the Treasury Department that 
while skins of cows and steers were hides, 
that skins of calves were not hides. 

Free-Trade in Hides by Means of Classi- 
fJ cation. 

So all the calfskins that enter into our 
fine shoes come in free of duty, because 
they are not hides. Having made this de- 
cision, wherein the stockman and the 
farmer lost by a single blow the Protec- 
tion on nearly one-half of their hide prod- 
ucts, it became necessary to establish 
some rule to determine when a calf ceases 
to be a calf. The hide itself did not 
seem to give very much information to 
the custom officers upon this subject of 
age, and so some other scheme had to be 
adopted. It was finally determined that 
if a green hide weighed less than 25 
pounds, it was not a hide, but a skin; 
that if a sun-dried and salted hide 
weighed less than 15 pounds, it lost it.s 
cognomen of "hide" and also became a 
skin; and If a sun-dried and arsenicated 
without salt hide weighed less than 12 



pounds, it also lost its hide character 
and became a skin. 

Now, every one of these skins gets in 
absolutely free of duty. Was that the 
intent of Congress at the time it passed 
that law? Was there any reason for put- 
ting hides upon the Protected list that 
would not also apply to the placing of 
calfskins that went into the higher-priced 
shoes upon the Protected list? What rea- 
son is there for placing a duty on what 
is called commercially "hides" that does 
not also apply to what is known com- 
mercially as "kip" and as "calf" skins. 
Why should there be Protection on hides 
without any corresponding Protection 
upon kip or upon calf? It requires the 
same amount of labor to produce one 
as the other, except that the continuing 
time and continuing labor may add a 
little more value to the one than the other 
from the labor standpoint. 

The Senator will remember that when 
we went from free hides everything had 
been placed upon the free list prior to 
the Dingley law. Not only the kip, but 
the calf and the heavier hides were on 
the free list. Then we discussed this 
matter in Congress. I can not find any- 
where that there was anything in the 
debate that led the farm.er to believe that 
the hide of his calf or his yearling was 
not to be Protected. There might have 
been some understanding with certain 
Members that they were to make a dis- 
tinction between the hides of cows and 
steers above a certain age and hides that 
weighed a less number of pounds than 
other hides. 

iVo Logic in the Distinction. 

There is no logic whatever in making 
this distinction between the character of 
the hides upon the cow and the steer and 
the hide upon the yearling and the calf. 
So glaring is this inconsistency that it 
has been surprising to me that neither 
the Senator from Montana [Mr. Carter], 
in whose State an immense quantity of 
cattle is raised, nor the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Warren], who has dis- 
cussed this question very fully, has at- 
tempted in any way to place the duty 
back upon the calfskin and the kipskin. 

A generously Inclined Democrat In the 
goodness of his heart, observing this in- 
consistency, has come to the relief of the 
Republican Senators and asked them to 
place the kip and the calf upon the same 
basis that we place the cowhide; and I, 
for one, think that is absolutely right. I 



McCt^MBER. 



373 



do not know what his view Is as to 
whether this duty should be 15 per cent 
or 20 per cent, but I do know his view 
is correct, that there should be no difCer- 
ence between the cow-hide, the kip hide. 
and the calf hide. 

I share in the glory of the Republican- 
ism of the State of Vermont during all 
of these years, and I am sorry myself to 
see that glory dimmed in any respect by 
her coming now before the American 
Congress and asking us to surrender Pro- 
tection in the West for her special bene- 
fit or for the benefit of one class of her 
citizens, because I do not think that it is 
for the benefit of the farming communi- 
ties, even of the State of Vermont. 

Let us not for. a moment forget that 

Nothing Which the Farmer Produces Can 
Be Properly Said to be Raw Material. 

Everything is the product of years of 
labor. Our schedules show that the 
farmer's Protection, outside of wool, runs 
from 15 to 20 per cent ad valorem, on 
wools about 45 per cent ad valorem, while 
the manufacturer's Protection runs from 
15 to 100 per cent ad valorem. 

I think, if I had time, I could demon- 
strate that there is not a single thing 
that is produced upon the farm that does 
not require more lafcor to produce for 
the value that is received for it than any 
manufactured product in the whole 
United States. 

We can divide this country into two 
great general classes — the farming com- 
munity, about one-half of the popula- 
tion, which produces the things to eat, 
and the remainder of the people of the 
United States producing the things to 
wear and to shelter us and to transport 
those things from one part of the coun- 
try to another; and one trades his com- 
modity for the commodity of the other. 
If it is essential to the prosperity of the 
farmer that the manufacturer should be 
prosperous and thereby enabled to pay a 
good price for the farmer's product, the 
reverse is equally true, that the pros- 
perity Of the manufacturer depends upon 
the ability of the farmer through pros- 
perity to purchase the manufacturer's 
products. The farmer stands ready to 
give the Protection to the manufacturer 
necessary "for him to compete against 
cheaper foreign manufactured products. 
He demands in return, and he rightfully 
demands, equal Protection against 
cheaper foreign agricultural products. 



Would the Senator from Vermont deny 
him that right? 

Farmers Come To the Front When Protec- 
tion Is Endangered. 

When your manufacturing Democratic 
cities vote the Democratic ticket, you 
pray for clear weather that you may 
get the farmer vote to overbalance the 
Democratic manufacturing votes. Mr. 
President, you have had throughout the 
United States no such staunch, unyield- 
ing friends for the cause of Protection 
as are found in the rural districts in the 
United States. They have come to the 
front every time that the Protective prin- 
ciples of the country have been endan- 
gered. 

Now, if the manufacturing section will 
just remember that the Protection which 
is guaranteed them by the consumers de- 
mand reciprocal consideration, if they 
will get it out of their minds that they 
must have free raw material for all their 
factories while holding the monopoly of 
the American trade for their product, 
their attitude will bring about a far bet- 
ter solution of the Protection question 
and place that principle upon a far safer 
and more enduring basis. 

In the discussion of this subject I have 
heard the word "threat" used. Mr. 
President, no threat has been uttered. 
A prophecy has been uttered. The prin- 
ciple of Protection is either a national 
principle or it is nothing. It has got to 
have universal support or else it has got 
to go to the wall. You can not Protect 
your manufactured articles and say to 
the farmer that he shall not have Pro- 
tection as against cheaper foreign pro- 
duction upon those things that he puts 
years of labor upon. 

We Must Stand or Fall Upon That Prin- 
ciple. 

And certainly, if Congress should so far 
forget itself that it will vote for no Pro- 
tection to the farmer's product, while 
voting a duty for the manufacturer's 
product, certainly we must then agree 
that the farmer's representatives can not 
vote a Protection for their product. We 
have either got to stand together for the 
Protective principle or to go together for 
the Free-Trade principle. 

If there is to be a Protective Tariff, 
the farmers and the stock raisers are en- 
titled to an equal share in Its benefits. 
A proposition which denies them the 



374 



McC UMBER. 



right to free access to the markets of the 
world for their purchases and at the same 
time forces them in competition with the 
lower priced products of the world in 
their sales is a monstrous proposition. If 
they are compelled to sell their products 
in competition with the cheaper products 
of the world, then they are entitled to 
purchase their products upon the same 
basis. 

If the American stock raisers and farm- 
ers must patronize the American Pro- 
tected market when they buy an article, 
they have the right for a Protected 
market when they sell an article. 

Difference in Cost of Production. 

Mr. President, it costs the American 
farmer and stockman far more to raise 
his cattle than it costs to raise cattle in 
Argentina or any other place in South 
America. This 15 per cent duty, in my 
opinion, does not measure one-half of 
the difference between the cost of pro- 
duction at home and abroad. It ought 
to be doubled. 

The Senator from Vermont will agree 
with me that the principle of Protection 
ought, at least, to measure the difference 
between the cost of production at home 
and abroad. Does this 15 per cent duty 
equal the difference between the cost of 
production of a steer or a cow in South 
America and in the United States? If 
it does not equal that, then should you 
not apply to my manufactured articles 
the same principle that I have tried to 
apply to yours? 

Does it not conclusively follow that by 
the removal of the Tariff on hides the 
cost of the product will be lessened to 
the extent of the Tariff reduction? In 
other words, the value of the American 
hide will have to drop to meet the re- 
duced cost of the foreign hide, and when 
the Tariff is added it adds so much to the 
value of the American hide. 

Let me give a definite case: Here is a 
lot of hides from Argentina, landed in 
the port of New York. They cost the im- 
porter, after he has paid, say. $15 duty. 
$100. Here is another lot of hides of the 
same quality and value lying in a New 
York warehouse for sale. Does any 
Senator seriously claim that these latter 
hides can be sold for more than $100. 
the price paid for the imported hides? 
Their price will be fixed by the cost of 
the imported article, including the duty 
paid. 



Self -Sacrificing Inclination of the Shoe 
IVIanufacturers. 

Mr. President, I am not unmindful of 
the fact that a great many of these shoe 
manufacturers say that they would pre- 
fer to have free hides and free shoes 
than to have Protected hides with Pro- 
tected shoes. Their self-sacrificing in- 
clination is certainly beautiful to behold, 
and would be very impressive if we did 
not stop to analyze it. They have had 
sufficient Protection for probably half a 
hundred years to keep out foreign shoes 
altogether and give them exclusive con- 
trol of the splendid American market. 
They have developed their plants and 
their machinery in this atmosphere of 
Protection until they have reached a 
degree of perfection and economy in the 
manufacture of shoes that have enabled 
them, after meeting the home demand, 
to enter the foreign fields of consumption 
against the foreign manufacturer not only 
by exports, but by establishing factories 
all over Europe. They are employing 
cheaper labor over there; they are de- 
veloping their trade enormously, and are 
now saying to the American people, "You 
have given us this Protection; you have 
helped us until we got on our feet; you 
have shielded us against foreign aggres- 
sion, until we have your market, and until 
we have built up our factories in the Old 
World. You can now go to the equator; 
we do not care whether there is a Tariff 
or not. Why, if you keep the Tariff on 
we will supply the American market from 
the American factories. If you take it 
off we will be able to supply the Ameri- 
can market from our European factories. 
We have got you both coming and go- 
ing." 

Mr. President, I not only want this 
Tariff of 15 per cent upon hides, but I 
want a Tariff of at least 25 per cent, not 
only upon hides, but upon kip and upon 
calfskins. I want the foreign article leg- 
islated against by a Tariff duty to an 
extent that will make the home market 
so valuable that the hide product will 
be increased until it supplies the home 
demand. 

There Will Be No Reduction in Price to 
the Consumer. ■ 

I carried on this colloquy a little longer 
than I intended. I have, I think, demon- 
strated one thing, and all agree with me 
upon that; first, that the 15 per cent duty 
is a benefit to the farmer. I think I 



McCUMBER. GAMBLE. 



375 



liave demonstrated another thing, that 
the farmer ough-t to have double that in- 
?tead of lo per cent. I think it need^ no 
derwonstratioYi whatever to convince every 
Senatcrt- tliat if he is entitled to 15 per 
c^nt at 30 per cent upon the hide he is 
(entitSed to the same amount upon the kip 
.and upon the calfskin. I think it i3 
.almost self-evident to everyone that we 
are not going to get any reduction in 
the price of the manufactured article by 
reason oif taking off the Tariff. There 
is just one thing that will reduce the 
value af the manufactured article, and 
that is hard times, when the consumer 
will not be able to pay the present price; 
and if we have good times, as I believe 
we will when we get through with this 
Tariff, the 'chances are that it is going 
to raise tJ-iC prices about to the ability 
of the American consumer to pay, Tariff 
or no T-^iff. 



Reifi^oval of the Duty on Hides Un= 
fair and Unjust to the Farmers of 
South Dakota. 

Trom the Congressional Record of June ^3, 
jgog. 

ROBERT J. GAMBLE, of South Dakota. 
South Dakota stands ninth among the 
States of the Union in its live-stock in- 
terest. As shown bj^ the report of the 
Secretary of Agriculture, it had on Jan- 
uary 1, 1908, a total of 2.034,000 cattle and 
milch cows, with a farm valuation of 
$42,663,000. 

The people of the State therefore have 
a vital and a pressing interest in the 
question now under consideration. They 
feel the rate of duty proposed is just and 
equitable, and that they are beneficiaries 
thereunder. To remove the present rate 
of 15 per cent and subject them to the 
free competition of the foreign producer, 
to my mind is unfair and unjust, and 
under the conditions proposed is ut- 
terly indefensible. 

If. however, the farmers ^nd stock 
raisers of the country had the slightest 
assurance that by a removal of the duty 
any benefit or advantage whatever would 
inure to them or to the general public, 
in the lowering of the price of boots and 
shoes, or of any of the products of 
leather, there might be some reason or 
justification upon which to base this de- 
mand. But neither from the witnesses 
who testified in the hearings before the 
Ways and Means Committee pf the House 



voif before the Finance Committee of the 
Senate, nor in the speeches that have 
been made hei-e, has any assurance been 
giv^li that any benefit, direct or indirect, 
Would accrue to the consumers of leather 
products, or that the prices in any re- 
spect would be lowered. 

False Doctrine that the Hide /s a Raw 
lifateria/. 

Mn President^ for such a demand to be 
made, and under such circumstances, it 
seems to hie unfair., unjust, and, to state 
It mildly, utterly selfish. The proposition 
made is that the farmer and stock raiser 
are to be sacrificed, and they are to be 
stripped of the Protection afforded them, 
while the tanners and the manufacturers 
of boots and shoes and of all the products 
are to retain the rates of duty under 
the provisions of the bill. The further 
suggestion is made that the hide of the 
steer is the raw product, and, under the 
rule "proposed, should be admitted free 
of "duty. This, it seems to me, is a false 
'doctrine, and, in fairness to the farmer, 
can not and should not be urged. It has 
already been fully answered, and I do 
not feel like trespassing upon the patience 
of the Senate to review it. But the steer 
is the product of three or four years of 
care, of expense in capital invested in 
the farms, in wages paid to employees, in 
the consumption of the products of the 
farm on which he is fed to maturity, 
including the risks of loss by disease 
■cr otherwise. To the farmer the 
steer ready for market, with the hide, 
is the finished product as far as he is 
concerned. Technically, the hide may be 
the raw material to the tanner. But it is 
no more the raw material to the tanner 
than the product of the tanner is to the 
maker of boots and shoes, or to the har- 
ness maker or the saddler or any of the 
other finishers "of leather. I submit, Mr. 
President, 

The Producer of Hides, in A If Fairness, 
is Entitled to a Li/ce Degree of Pro- 
tection, the Same as the Tanner and the 
Manufacturer of His Products. 

He is obliged to meet the same com- 
petition from the foreign producer. He 
has capital invested, he has labor to pay, 
he bears the risks and uncertainties of 
the business. If the hide market of this 
country is to bo opened to the free com- 
petition of the world, what superior 
claims have the tanners or the manu- 



376 



GAMBLE. 



facturers of boots and shoes or the man- 
ufacturers of leather In any form over 
those of the American farmer? 

I submit, Mr. President, if this duty Is 
to be removed entirely I can see no just 
ground why the duties on leather or any 
of its products should be retained on the 
dutiable list. The same argument ap- 
plies to the one as to the other. 

The duty proposed could be sustained 
upon the ground of revenue alone. The 
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. McLaurin] 
a few moments since made reference 
to it "as a source of revenue and de- 
clared it produced upward of $3,000,000. 
To be exact, Mr. President, for the year 
1907 the duty on hides produced $3,- 
115,390; but it must be remembered there 
was returned in drawbacks to the im- 
porters of foreign hides, $907,386, leav- 
ing a net revenue of $2,208,004. 

Would Protect All Alike. 

I am in favor of a retention of the ex- 
isting duty upon hides. I am also In 
favor of a proper duty upon boots and 
shoes and all of the products of leather, 
so that the wage-earner upon the farm 
and elsewhere, and the farmer and stock- 
man who have their investments in the 
farm and in the cattle, may be Protected 
against foreign competition at a less in- 
vestment and at a lower wage rate. And 
in view of the great production of cattle 
In Argentina and other South American 
countries on their cheap lands and at a 
low wage scale and the danger from 
large importation from that source and 
with cheap ocean freight rates, I would 
Protect the farmer at least in the pres- 
ent duty upon hides. I would also Pro- 
tect the tanner, the manufacturer of 
boots and shoes, and the manufacturer 
of all the products of leather with a 
proper, fair, and just rate, so that they, 
in like manner, would be Protected from 
foreign invasion and against the cheaper 
labor from abroad. 

Mr. President, it seems to me these 
great interests and industries dependent 
upon the product of the farmer as the 
producer of the hide have been wonder- 
fully prosperous during the years while 
the present rate of duty has been in 
force. They have not only taken pos- 
session of our own markets, but have 
come into direct competition with all the 
markets of the world. And I find, Mr. 
President, as to the exports, that for 
the year 1907 there were 5,883,914 pairs 
of boots and shoes exported, of a value of 



$10,666,000; and during the past twelve 
years this great industry in export trade 
has increased from $1,436,000 to $11,469.- 
000 during the last fiscal year, an in- 
crease of 1,000 per cent. 

Mr. President, should there be any 
complaint made by this industry against 
existing conditions when such a tre- 
mendous showing has been made? It has 
been enabled, as I say, to possess itself 
of and retain the domestic market, which 
is the greatest market of the world, and 
has exported $11,500,000 of their product 
during the past fiscal year. The duty the 
Government has provided for this indus- 
try has aided in preserving the domestic 
market, because I find that in 1906 the 
quantity of boots and shoes imported from 
foreign countries was of the value of 
$43,000, and since that time to 1907 has 
increased only to $164,000. 

Unwise, Unfair, and Selfish. 

It does not occur to me these inter- 
ests are suffering or are endangered. 
Judging from the rate of wages paid, 
from the profits not only of the boot and 
shoe manufacturers but of the leather in- 
terest itself, they have been enabled to 
prosper, to develop, and to grow and re- 
tain the domestic market, and come into 
direct competition with the markets of 
the world and to secure their full 
share. Why should they during such 
prosperity at this time come and ask 
to strike down the nominal Protection 
that is given to the farmers of this 
country upon the item of hides? 

To me, Mr. President, it seems unwise, 
it seems unfair; to my mind It seems 
selfish In the extreme. The farmers of 
this country, especially In the area from 
whence this great product comes, are 
loyal Protectionists. They believe in that 
policy. They do not believe in section- 
alism, 

I do not believe the manufacturing In- 
terests of the East should seek to take 
advantage* of this great interest and de- 
spoil it of this limited Protection, which, 
as it seems to me and as has been dem- 
onstrated here in this debate, inures to 
the benefit of the producers of cattle. 
Yet if it Is stricken down, no compen- 
sation Is proposed to be made, as far as 
the purchasers or consumers of either 
boots, shoes, harness, saddlery, or any 
of the products of leather are concerned. 

Mr. President, I believe the proposed 
duty should* be maintained In fairness to 



HEYBURN. BEVERIDGE. 



377 



the great interests represented by the 
farmers and stock raisers of the country. 



"The Party that Pledged Itself in 
Favor of a Revision Downward 
Was Defeated by More Than a Mil= 
lion Votes at the Polls." 

From the Congressional Record of June 22, 
1909. 

WELDON B. HEYBURN, of Idaho. The 
Republican party stands pledged to a 
duty on hides. It stands pledged not only 
as a national party, but in the several 
States Republican majorities have been 
given because the Republican party was 
so pledged. 

Mr. President, because trusts exist and 
oppress us is not a sufflcient reason for 
abandoning the principles of a political 
party. 

There is another suggestion. There Is 
nothing in the platform of the Republi- 
can party, nor does anyone, I think, claim 
that there is, that pledges us to reform 
either the Republican party or its prin- 
ciples. I know of no such declaration. 

There was a party in the political field 
last fall that pledged itself in favor of a 
revision of the Tariff downward, and 
there was one that did not. The party 
that pledged itself in favor of a revision 
downward was defeated by more than a 
million votes at the polls. Are you going 
to undo that verdict? It is the verdict 
of the American people, and it is the ver- 
dict of the Republican party. Does any 
Republican dare to stand here and say he 
abides by and considers himself bound by 
the Democratic platform? Does he dare 
to stand here, or elsewhere, and say that 
the Republicans shall observe and adhere 
to the planks and political declarations of 
the Democratic party? 

For one I do not. This question of 
the duty on hides is a large question, 
and 

Affects Perfiaps More People Than Almost 
Any Other Question 

that is before us. There are more than 
10,000,000 people engaged in producing 
this article of commerce, and it is an 
article that comes home to more people 
of humble station than you would dream 
of. You talk about syndicates and trusts 
here. The cow that dies In the stable 
of the cotter means more to that house- 
hold than the loss of a train load of cat- 



tle over an embankment on their way to 
the packing houses in Chicago. 

I am giving my thought most to that 
part of the people. The trusts need no 
Protection. I do not care whether they 
have it or not. They are entitled to it as 
any other part of the people are, but I 
realize that they are strong enough to 
take care of themselves. But the poor 
are not, and the highest function of gov- 
ernment is to Protect the poor. When- 
ever one of these questions comes up, the 
first inquiry in my mind is, How will it 
affect the great mass of the people, who 
are neither trusts nor connected with 
trusts? 

It Is Not the Platform that Won. 

What are you going to say to the people 
when you go back to the various States 
about the pledge that was written in the 
Republican platform to Protect these in- 
terests and they ask. Why did you not 
do It? Would you say the day was too 
warm; It was midsummer? Dare you 
do It? I think not. 

Now, here is another little platform 
that I want to know if anybody on this 
side of the House has stored away In 
their minds as a possible refuge of po- 
litical retreat: 

We demand the immediate repeal of 
the Tariff on wood pulp, print paper, 
lumber, timber, and logs, and that those 
articles be placed upon the free list. 

That is in the platform, but it is not 
the platform that won. It is the one that 
lost. 

Just give me your attention a moment, 
until I give you the genesis of the Re- 
publican party, and see if anybody fails 
to recognize it: 

That, while providing revenue for the 
support of the General Government by 
duties upon imports, sound policy re- 
quires such an adjustment of these Im- 
posts as to encourage the development 
of the industrial interests of the whole 
country, and we commend that policy of 
national exchanges which secures to the 
workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture 
remunerative prices, to mechanics and 
manufacturers an adequate reward for 
their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to 
the Nation commercial prosperity and in- 
dependence. (Republican platform, 1860.) 

McKinley Never Helped to Unmake a Re- 
publican Platform. 
Mr. BEVERIDGE. I asked whether or 
not McKinley. the prince of Protection- 
ists, would also stand upon that plat- 
form, and If he was for a duty on hides 
or for free hides? 



378 



HEYBURN. 



Mr. HEYBURN. I will answer the 
question, and I want to answer it now. 
McKinley was a Republican who helped 
to make platforms, and he never helped 
to unmake a Republican platform which 
existed prior to or during his lifetime. 
He would have been loyal and true to the 
principles of Protection. I will go no 
further, because no man can speak 
further as to what he would have done 
or what he would do to-day. I have faith 
that any Republican who is imbued with 
the principles of the Republican party 
will stand to-day where McKinley stood, 
and where other Senators stand, for the 
principles of the Republican party. 

The Republican party has been a grow- 
ing party; it has been an advancing 
party. It never took a step backward; 
it never unwrote a plank or a principle 
that it ever professed or that it told the 
people it stood for — never. Can any Sen- 
ator name a plank for which the Re- 
publican party ever stood that is not to- 
day one of the foundation principles of 
the Republican party, and that is not 
to-day written in the laws of the land? 
There is not a statute on the books in 
force to-day that was not first written 
in a Republican platform. I say that 
without any fear of contradiction. The 
platform of the Republican party in the 
past is the law of the Nation to-day. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. And was in Mc- 
Klnley's time. 

Mr. HEYBURN. We did not support 
Mr. McKinley because he did not believe 
in the principle of Protection; and it is 
perhaps more for that than for any 
other purpose that I stand here in this 
hour, and I want to sound this note, that 
men who are Republicans, or care to call 
themselves such, have no more right to 
vote for free hides than they have to vote 
for Free-Trade in any other schedule. 

It Is Not a Question of Choice. 

Tour pledge is out; it is out to the 
party and it is out to the people. To 
bring up this hobgoblin of the trust I& 
like a great face that you put on every 
time a schedule comes up that you do 
not like and you claim that there is a 
trust behind it. Will you abandon your 
house because some real or imaginary 
enemy steps in during your absence and 
takes possession of it? I guess not. We 
will not abandon the Republican party, 
even though it is claimed that a trust 
has taken possession of a part of it. We 
will drive the 'trust out, and we will re- 



\ 



habilitate the Republican party and keep^ 
it in the clean and pure atmosphere of' 
government based upon the principles for" 
which it stands. Shall we abandon the 
Republican party, even though trust* 
have come in and taken possession af a 
part of it? I guess not. The Republican 
party is not made up of that kind of 
men. We not only can make laws, but 
we can enforce them, and we can punish 
those who violate the rights, or any part 
of the rights, of the people. 

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, I beg to^ 
remind the Senator from Indiana that, 
in the making of the present Tariff Mr.. 
McKinley was President of the United 
States and had great influence in the^ 
Congress which passed the Dingley bill.. 
He could easily have had hides put upon 
the free list if he had so desired. On 
the contrary, he did not so desire, and 
he signed the bill that made the law 
which put hides upon a dutiable basis. 

Republicans, Where Would You Be Without 
the Farmers of the United States? 

The majority that we had in the last 
election came to you from the farmers, 
in the country districts. If you do not 
believe it, look at the statistics and see.. 
I undertake to say that had you elimi- 
nated the Protective Tariff pledge of the 
Republican party, for which I am speak- 
ing to-day, from the campaign last fall,, 
you would have had scant show, and I 
know whereof I speak. I went into the 
campaign, and I was in it from the be- 
ginning. I went into it in August and 
was in it every day and night until elec- 
tion. I found that what the farmers 
wanted to know was, "What can we 
rely upon in the way of stability?" They 
did not want any favors. I said, "You 
can rely upon the Republican party 
standing pat." I said, "You can rely 
upon retaining the duty on wool and 
hides and cattle and wheat, and oats and 
barley and potatoes." I said, "You can 
rely upon it that we will furnish you a 
market for those things in the mines by 
Protecting the products of the mines." 
I said, "You can rely upon it that when 
you have raised these things and have 
them ready for sale, the market will be 
standing ready to receive them." 

You can not strike down industries that 
employ thousands of men who are con- 
sumers without striking down the market 
of the producer of those things which 
they consume. 



WARREN. BURTON. 



379 



Do Not the Ten Million Farmers Count? 

Do not the 10,000,000 consumers en- 
gaged in raising hides count at all in 
this plea for the consumer that we have 
been hearing about? We hear Senator 
after Senator stand up here and say, "It 
is the consumer you are pledged to." 

The affections of the party pledged to 
the consumer! Why, there are 10,000,000 
of them raising cattle; there are 10,000,000 
of them interested in this schedule on 
hides. Are they less consumers? They 
are consumers of shoes; they are con- 
sumers of the products of those skins 
and hides, just as much as the man who 
treads the marble floor or the halls of 
this Capitol. Are you going to cut out 
10,000,000 consumers merely because, for- 
sooth, they are producers as well and 
strangle them in their ability to be con- 
sumers? Where are you going to get a 
market for the products of your pros- 
perity if you render these people poverty 
stricken and out of business? It matters" 
not though the products of the earth were 
piled around you mountain high, you 
would starve to death, except to the ex- 
tent you could eat them, unless there 
were consumers to purchase them; but 
if you make other people too poor to 
purchase your commodity, where are you 
going to find your market? 

Are you going to buy hides from for- 
eign lands and bring them in here, and 
then send the hides of this country to 
those foreign lands? Is that the scheme? 

Deal at home — j«ist as near home as 
you can buy, too. 

Deal with Your Neighbor and He Will 
Deal with You, 

and the circle will widen as the ripple 
upon the face of the still water widens 
to the shores, and come back again and 
repeat the reverberations of prosperity. 
This thing of buying skins in Australia 
and Argentina and Mexico to clothe the 
American people is a farce, and it is a 
wicked one, when we have them here. 
If the prosperity of business is main- 
tained by proper provisions of law and 
conditions of government, they will in- 
crease. Just decrease by discouragement 
the production of hides and see how 
quickly you will decrease the production 
of beef and meat, and see how quickly 
you will feel it in the advanced price 
that always follows a decrease of pro- 
duction. 
Wliat do you want to do, bury the 



hides that come from these animals? 
No. I will tell you what you will do if 
you discourage cattle raising. The men 
now engaged in that business will go 
out of it and overcrowd some other 
neighboring business. 



Does Not Believe There Ever Was 
Any Justification for the Duty on 
Hides. 

From tlie Congressional Record of June 22, 
1909. 

THEODORE E. BURTON, of Ohio. The 
question of a duty on , hides can not be 
considered exclusively as a Tariff prop- 
osition. A discussion of the principles 
of Protection will not solve it. The 
whole course of business relating to the 
raising of cattle, the tanning of leather, 
the manufacture of shoes, is involved, and 
the nature of the organizations or per- 
sons who have to do with each of these 
branches of business must be taken into 
account. 

The first objection to a Tariff on hides 
is one which did not exist in 1872, when 
they were placed on the free list, nor to 
any great extent in 1890, when they were 
again included in the free list. In an- 
swer to the defiance of the Senator from 
Idaho [Mr. Heyburn], who asked what 
Republican Senator here will dare to vote 
against a duty on hides, I have to an- 
swer him that I voted with William Mc- 
Kinley in 1890 against a duty on hides, 
for after that question had received elab- 
orate consideration, no duty was im- 
posed; nor was there any duty in the 
Dingley bill when I voted for it in the 
House in 1897, and I feel perfectly free 
to-day, or whenever the question comes 
up for a vote, to pursue the same course 
by voting against a duty. 

Would the Removal of the Duty Lower the 
Price of Shoes? 

It has been maintained here that the 
removal of the duty would make no dif- 
ference in the price of shoes. There lias 
been a good deal of argument on that 
point. I take it that if the Tariff raises 
the price of the hides, it raises the price 
of leather and shoes as well; and if the 
price of hides will be lowered by a re- 
moval of duty, the price of shoes and 
leather will be similarly affected. The 
average rise in the price of leather in 
a pair of shoes ascribed to the Tariff 



380 



BURTON. SMITH. CUMMINS. 



on hides would be from 2 to 8 cents. 
Some say It would be from 6 to 9. If 
it is true that the Tariff does raise the 
price of hides and of leather, that is an 
amount sufficient to be taken into ac- 
count. 

I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Pres- 
ident, that I do not believe there ever was 
any justification for imposing this duly. 
I am satisfied that the cattle industry was 
just as prosperous without it; that the 
farmer will reap the benefit of the rais- 
ing of cattle to the fullest measure with- 
out it; that if any benefit accrues, it will 
be to those 'great establishments which 
buy and sell for slaughtering; that the 
continuance of this duty threatens not 
only a great industry — first the tanning 
industry and then the shoe and leather 
industry; also that it is likely, by pro- 
moting concentration in the business and 
even monopoly, to increase the cost of all 
these articles to the people. 



The Maintenance of the Tariff on 
Hides an Economic and Political 
Error. 

From the Congressional Record of June 22, 
1909. 

WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Michi- 
gan. I voted for free hides, as all Re- 
publicans did, when the Dingley bill 
passed the House of Representatives. For 
three-quarters of a century we have had 
free hides in this country. There is not 
a great commercial country in the world 
which imposes a duty upon hides. The 
entire business world recognizes that 
there is a great scarcity of this article. 
The packing houses acquire it as a by- 
product, and pay the farmer and cattle 
raiser very little for it, arbitrarily fixing 
the price. The tanners need the hides, 
and the leather manufacturer finds great 
difficulty in obtaining them. I can see no 
reason for limiting this supply and con- 
centrating it into a few hands. 

Mr. Blaine and Mr. McKinley and Mr. 
Harrison and Mr. Arthur and Mr. Garfield 
and Mr. Dingley, all good Protectionists, 
saw no wisdom in maintaining this duty. 
The dependence of our tanners and 
leather manufacturers upon South Amer- 
ica everyone admits. It is the Idlest 
folly to make this item a test of a man's 
devotion to the principles of Protection, 
and the maintenance of this duty is an 
economic and political error. The House 



of Representatives saw no wisdom in It, 
and the same body in McKinley's admin- 
istration saw none. Thousands of people 
protest against it. The multiplied uses 
of leather call loudly for a world's supply 
of raw material, and we shall be unfaith- 
ful if we do not heed the call. 

"We know the demands which are made 
for this necessary product, boots and 
shoes, harness and saddles, while every 
woman carries a leather bag. Every fac- 
tory, with its thousands of workmen, 
uses leather belting; every furniture man- 
ufacturer uses it as a part of his art and 
for the convenience of his patron. Our 
country can not supply the demand, and 
I see neither wisdom, policy, nor com- 
mon sense in the extreme position to 
which some Members of the Senate would 
lead us in this matter. In perfect har- 
mony with my past record as a Protec- 
tionist, I intend to cast my vote against 
the committee amendment; but I do not 
propose to be led into the error of cast- 
ing my vote against a duty on the man- 
ufactures of that raw material, made by 
hundreds of thousands of my country- 
men, and which I still desire to see con- 
verted into the finished product upon our 
own soil for the benefit of the American 
people. 



There Ought to Be a Reasonable 
Duty on Hides. 

Fron% the Congressional Record of June 22, 
1909. 

ALBERT B. CUMMINS, of Iowa. Mr. 
President, I move to strike out from the 
amendment offered by the committee the 
word "fifteen" and to insert in lieu 
thereof the word "ten," so that the duty 
levied will be 10 per cent instead of 15 
per cent. 

I have listened to the long debate upon 
this subject with a good deal of interest, 
because I happen to represent in part a 
State which produces more cattle, at 
least in value, than any other State in 
the Union, and therefore it may be as- 
sumed that our people are somewhat in- 
terested in this matter. I have not heard 
a single word suggested that could lead 
me — I was about to say "or any reason- 
able man" — to the conclusion that there 
should not be a duty on hides that would 
not apply with equal force to every ar- 
ticle or commodity in this bill which we 
do not produce in sufficient quantities for 
our own use; and there are a great many 



CUMMINS. HALE. ALDRICH. 



381 



1 



such things that fall within the principle. 
I think, of Protection. Therefore it seems 
to me that there ought to be a reason- 
able duty on hides. Nor have I any doubt 
whatsoever that the producer of hides 
derives a fair advantage and a fair ben- 
efit from the increased price which this 
duty creates. But I believe that the 
whole scale of duties of the Dingley law, 
or substantially all the duties of the 
Dingley law, were higher than they 
should have been; and I am from time 
to time endeavoring to impress upon the 
Senate the duty, as I view it, of reducing 
these taxes. I think the farmer should 
bear his fair share of the reduction. 

Duty on Shoes Should Also Be Reduced. 

The boot and shoe manufacturer of the 
United States buys the hide — the finished 
product of the cattle raiser — and pays 10 
per cent more than he would otherwise 
pay by reason of the Imposition of the 
duty. If it were true that 10 per cent 
upon the process of reducing hides into 
shoes would measure the difference be- 
tween the cost of doing that work in the 
United States and in Great Britain or 
Germany or France, the argument of the 
Senator from Texas would be unanswer- 
able, namely, that the 10 per cent ad 
valorem, carried through the additional 
cost of manufacture, would completely 
Protect the American boot and shoe man- 
ufacturers. But assume for a moment — 
and it is a purely hypothetical case, be- 
cause it is not here at the present mo- 
ment — that the difference between the 
cost of making leather into shoes in the 
United States is 50 per cent higher than 
in Great Britain or any other competing 
country. Then the 10 per cent added to 
the cost of the material would not equal- 
ize the American manufacturer with his 
competitor across the sea. That must 
be perfectly obvious. 

I understand how inconclusive that 
would be with anyone who believed sim- 
ply in levying duties for the purpose of 
producing revenue; but from the stand- 
point of the Protectionist it seems to me 
that the argument is sound. 

In this particular case I repeat that I 
do not believe that It costs us any more 
to make shoes, or as much to make shoes, 
as it does our competitors elsewhere, and 
therefore I think 10 per cent duty would 
be abundant Protection to the boot and 
shoe manufacturers. I know enough about 
the spirit that prevails in the Senate — 
I have heard enough suggested from time 



to time in an informal way — to be sure 
that if the duty on hides is reduced to 
10 per cent the duty on shoes will also 
be reduced to 10 per cent. And there- 
fore I hope that no one who believes in 
a fair reduction of duties, as we reach 
those duties, will be prevented from vo- 
ting for my motion on that account, for 
I can not, without offering a substitute 
for the entire amendment, include In It 
other forms or any forms of manufac- 
tured leather. 

A Pari of the Great Policy of Protection. 

Mr. HALE. In line with the thought 
just suggested by the Senator from Rhode 
Island, I wish to say that one reason why 
I will vote for the duty on hides as a 
part of the great policy of Protection of 
home industries is that I will with equal 
satisfaction and earnestness oppose the 
reduction of the duty on boots and shoes. 

I do not agree in any way with the sen- 
timent that you will give free hides and 
follow that up by cutting down the duty 
on boots and shoes, which are an ad- 
vanced stage, a manufacture involving 
labor, involving in my State great indus- 
tries. While I will vote for the duty on 
hides, I will as earnestly and helpfully as 
in me lies oppose any reduction of the 
duty on boots and shoes, the finished 
product. 



No Sympathy with the Battle Be- 
tween Different Industries; All 
Should Be Treated Alike. 

From the Congressional Record of June 22, 
1909. 
NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. . . . The committee considered this 
question of the duty on hides very care- 
fully. We heard the representatives of 
the boot and shoe people and of the tan- 
ners and of the farmers, who are inter- 
ested in maintaining the duty on hides. 
The committee decided, as Protectionists, 
that we ought to look out for the Inter- 
ests of the cattle raisers of Iowa and of 
the other States, and we believed if any 
duty was to be put on hides at all that 
15 per cent was not too high. That seems 
to me perfectly plain. It is a revenue 
duty. It is not a high duty at all. If as 
a matter of policy we ought to put hides 
on the free list, that Is one thing; but if 
we are going to give Protection to the 
men who raise the cattle in various parts 
of the country, I think the revenue duty, 



382 



ALDRICH. BEVERIDGE. DIXON. TALIAFERRO. 



or the Protection duty — whatever you call 
it — of 15 per cent is not too high. That 
is the view of the committee. 

The Committee on Finance reported in 
favor of a duty on hides. They are in 
favor of a reasonable duty upon boots and 
shoes, upon leather, and upon every 
other article produced in the United 
States; and they have no sympathy what- 
ever with this battle between different 
industries, one trying to put the materials 
of the other upon the free list or trying 
to reduce the duties unduly upon any of 
these articles. 

I hope there will be no continuance of 
this battle between Protectionists to see 
which will get the better of the other 
upon any of these propositions. We ought 
to give fair and decent treatment to them 
all; and that is what the committee has 
tried to do in their recommendations. 

A Part of His Advert/sing Scheme? 

And, Mr. President, when the commit- 
tee do make their report they will not 
be governed by |he opinion of a single 
manufacturer of shoes of a particular 
kind that he has spent millions of dollars 
in advertising all over the world and 
which he sells on a trade-mark. I suppose, 
of course, the merits of the shoes have 
something to do with it; but he has spent 
a large amount of money in advertising 
his shoes. He was elected governor of 
Massachusetts once, I think; and I have 
been told that that was a part of his ad- 
vertising scheme. I suppose that is not 
true. I assume it is not true. But it was 
stated commonly in the newspapers at 
the time that he was willing to pay large 
amounts for advertising in any directiorx. 
He occupies this peculiar situation by 
himself; and I am sure that he does not 
in any sense represent the boot and shoe 
manufacturers of the United States, and 
that he is not trying to remove the duties 
upon hides and upon leather with any 
idea except that of advertising his own 
views and his own shoes. 



Stalwart Protectionists Who Were 
Opposed to a Tariff On Hides. 

From the Congressional Record of June ^3, 
1909. 
AIvBERT J. BEVERIDGE. of Indiana. 
Mr. Pre.sident, I have heard two or three 
times- during this debate an appeal for 
this duty upon the ground of Protection. 
It was a very natural argument to make. 



I blame no Senator for making it, but I 
have heard an expression with reference 
to "Protectionist Senators." Well, that 
Is becoming an old question in this debate. 
Those of us who are insisting that no 
greater duty than is actually Protective, 
in our opinion, should be put in the bill 
think that we are even the better — cer- 
tainly the more rational and safer — Pro- 
tectionists; we think that we are the 
sounder and truer Protectionists. 

But upon this specific duty on hides, 
I call the attention of the Senate and the 
country to the fact that John Sherman 
was a Protectionist, and he was for free 
hides; McKinley was a Protectionist, and 
he was for free hides; James G. Blaine 
was a Protectionist, and he, perhaps, per- 
formed greater labor for the great cause 
of Protection than any other man in this; 
Republic since the day of Clay — and 
Blaine was for free hides. 

If it is suggested that those men are 
of the past and that that would not be 
their opinion now, it must be conceded 
that Mr. Payne, the present chairman of 
the House committee, is a Protectionist 
of Protectionists, and as such he is for 
free hides. 



Under Protection Florida's Produc- 
tion of Pineapples Has Increased 
from 100,000 to 1,000,000 Crates. 

From the Congressional Record of June 23, 
1909. 

Mr. DIXON, of Montana. Was there 
any production of pineapples in Florida 
until the Dingley rates were placed upon 
pineapples in 1897? 

Mr. TALIAFERRO, of Florida. In 1897 
the production of pineapples in Florida 
was about 100,000 crates. 

Mr. DIXON. Had there been any duty 
upon them before that time? 

Mr. TALIAFERRO. I think not- I do 
not recall that there had been, although 
I do not make the assertion positively. 

Mr. DIXON. Has the imposition of the 
duties under the Dingley bill tended to 
increase the production of pineapples In 
Florida? 

Mr. TALIAFERRO. The crop has in- 
creased, as I have stated, from about 
100,000 crates In 1897 to a million crates 
In 1909. 

Mr. DIXON. In the Senator's opinion, 
has the imposition of the Tariff rates on 
pineapples imported from Cuba tended 



TALIAFERRO. DIXON. FLETCHER. GALLINGER. 



883 



toward the development of |the Industry 
in Florida? 

Mr. TALIAFERRO. I think that the 
present rate tends to develop very largely 
the industry in the island of Cuba. 

Mr. DIXON. The Senator evidently 
has not answered my question. I will 
say frankly to the Senator that if the im- 
position of a duty on pineapples will pro- 
duce in our own country the pineapples 
that w'e consume, I, as a Protectionist 
and a Republican, want to vote for it. 
If it is not going to do so, I do not want 
to increase the duty. We might as well 
have a fair explanation of the matter. 
I think many Senators on this side of 
the Chamber would appreciate it. 

Impossible to Continue in the Business 
Un/ess the Duty /s Increased. 

Mr. TALIAFERRO. I will say for the 
benefit of the Senator that the producers 
of pineapples have appeared before the 
Ways and Means Committee of the House 
and have taken the position that it is 
Impossible for them to continue in this 
business unless the duty is increased; that 
with an increased duty on pineapples they 
can succeed, and can so far increase the 
product in this country and develop the 
industry in the State of Florida as to 
supply the American demand at a reason- 
able price. That is their contention. But 
I am not asking for this amendment on 
that ground. I am asking for it because 
it will increase the revenues of the coun- 
try. I am asking for it because I propose 
to demonstrate that, with this duty, the 
Cuban can put his product of pineapples 
in the Eastern markets for 50 cents a 
crate less than the Florida producer can 
raise his product and put it in New 
York. 

Mr. DIXON. Mr. President, I will re- 
mark in passing that I am one Member 
of the Senate who believes in consistency. 
If we can develop the pineapple industry 
in Florida and extend it and supply this 
great Nation by imposing this slight in- 
crease in duty, I do not know under what 
rule of enactment of this law it should 
not be done. 

The Question of Wages. 

Mr. FLETCHER. My colleague yields 
to me for a moment on the question of 
wages raised by the Senator from In- 
diana. I find in volume 4 of Tariff Hear- 
ings the statement to be thus: 

With their small cost for land and no 
fertilizers used, the Cuban grower has a 



maximum cost for labor of 80 cents pef 
day. and at times much less figures, 
whereas we have a minimum cost foi* 
labor of $1.25 per day, with the average 
for a large part of the season above $1.50 
per day, and a part of the year we pay 
as high as $2 and even $2.50 per day. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I presume the Sen- 
ator is accurate in saying that some of 
the products of the mills of New Hamp- 
shire go to Cuba. But I want to say to 
the Senator that unless I have read 
history incorrectly, in view of what this 
country has done for Cuba in the way 
of sacrifices of men and money and the 
advantage it is giving Cuba in the way 
of a differential in the Tariff rates on 
her products, the increase in our com- 
merce with Cuba has been very slight 
indeed. Cuba has not been a very good 
customer of the United States. 



Have Matters Reached a Point Where 
We Are to Legislate to Promote 
the Commerce and Trade of Cuba 
as Against an American Industry? 

From the Congressional Record of June 2^, 
1909. 

D. UPSHAW FLETCHER, of Florida. 
Another statement is made, Mr. Presi- 
dent, to the effect that the Florida pine- 
apple is produced by foreign labor. There 
never was anything further from the 
actual truth than that. I do not mean 
to say that the Senator meant to mis- 
represent. His information is wrong. 
The labor that produces the Florida 
pineapple is the native labor, or the 
labor that has come in there for the 
purpose of growing pineapples. The 
growers of pineapples in Florida are 
people from all over this country. A 
large majority of them are Republicans, 
men coming from Republican States. Are 
you going to say the Republican princi- 
ple of prosperity does not apply in a 
State because it lies outside of Republi- 
can territory? 

But I am not bothered about their 
politics. I never inquired into it. I 
know this is an important industry. I, 
know that there are 7,000 acres under 
cultivation in Florida to-day and 10,000) 



384 



BEVERIDGE. SUTHERLAND. ROOT. TALIAF EI RO. 



people are engaged in producing pineap- 
ples there. I know — ^and this is no 
guesswork, because I have seen the land 
and I have had to deal with some of it 
—that there are 500,000 acres of land in 
Florida suited and adapted to this in- 
dustry. I know perfectly well that Flor- 
ida, with Porto Rico and Jamaica, can 
supply the demands of this country, no 
matter what it may be in the future. 
I know that perfectly well. 

Florida Pineapples Are Grown with 
American Labor. 

The Senator says that Florida wants 
Protection to stimulate artificially an 
industry that is not entitled to consid- 
eration, and that works against Cuba; 
that American capital is in Cuba, and 
that the industry in Cuba is an Amer- 
ican industry. I ask Senators whether 
matters have reached a point where we 
are to legislate to promote the com- 
merce and trade of Cuba as against 
an American industry? Have they 
reached the point where we must claim, 
because Americans are engaged in some 
industry in Cuba, that such is an Amer- 
ican industry, when the citizens of our 
own States are to be denounced as en- 
gaged in an industry promoted by for- 
eign labor? 

That is an absurd statement — that Ja- 
maicans are brought into Florida and 
work in the groves. Most of the labor 
in the pineapple groves is white labor. 
Most of it is intelligent labor. It re- 
quires a man of sense as well as of in- 
dustry and enterprise to grow pineap- 
ples, I will tell you. The people who are 
doing it are people of sense; and they 
are enjoying as high a degree of civiliza- 
tion, with as nice homes and as nice sur- 
roundings and as great skill and industry 
as the people in any portion of this 
country, I care not where they come 
from. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Is it true that that 
industry has, under the present Tariff, 
grown in production from 100,000 crates 
to 1,000,000 crates this year? 

Mr. FLETCHER. It has grown in pro- 
duction from 100,000 crates fifteen years 
ago to over 1,000,000 crates to-day; not 
under, not In pursuance of, and not be- 
cause of any Protection or any law, but 
because of the enterprise and the Indus- 
try and the Intelligence of the men who 
are operating the groves. 



Was It Profitable to Give Cuba Out 
of Our Treasury $7,000,000 a Year 
to Enable Some American Ex- 
porters to Make $2,000,000 Per 
Annum? 

From the Congressional Record of June 23, 
1909. 
GEORGE SUTHERLAND, of Utah. 
The Senator from New York tells us 
that we have increased our trade with 
Cuba from $27,000,000 to $47,000,000. That 
has been an increase of $20,000,000. But 
we have given to Cuba in the neigh- 
borhood of $7,000,000 per annum out of 
our Treasury. Let us assume that the 
importers or the exporters of the United 
States to Cuba have made a profit of 
10 per cent upon the goods that they 
have shipped to Cuba, which I think 
is a very fair estimate to make; that 
would be $2,000,000 per annum. Does 
the Senator from New York think that 
it is a profitable transaction for the 
United States Government to give to 
Cuba out of its Treasury six or seven 
million dollars per annum in order ' to 
enable some exporters along the Atlan- 
tic seaboard to make $2,000,000 per an- 
num? 

Mr. ROOT. I do not undertake to con- 
sider it merely as a reciprocity treaty, 
without reference to other considera- 
tions. I do not think that the reciproc- 
ity treaty between the United States 
and Cuba is profitable to the United 
States. I think that the United States 
gets more from that treaty than we get 
from Cuba in the mere trade. But I 
have not the slightest question that the 
profit to Cuba is of greater value to the 
United States than it is to the Cubans 
who make it, for we must keep Cuba as 
a free. independent. and peaceable 
country, or else we shall face the altern- 
ative of letting Cuba go to some foreign 
power, which we never can permit, or of 
taking it ourselves, which I hope we 
never shall commit. 

Thinks Better Protection for Florida 
Pineapples Would Violate the Cuban 
Treaty. 

Mr. TALIAFERRO. Does the Senator 
from New York contend that there Is 
anything In the pending amendment vio- 
lative In any way of tlie present treaty 
or the spirit of the present treaty with 
Cuba? 



iiOO'V. ALDUlCli. 



385 



Mr. ROOT. My impression Is. and It 
is a very strong impression, that tlie 
pending amendment would be violative of 
the spirit of the treaty. I think that for 
U9 to make a treaty, under which we 
agree to reduce by 20 per cent the du- 
ties on Cuban products, and then to 
turn around and make an increase of 
128 per cent in the duty upon a product 
which comes to us from no other foreign 
country than Cuba would, in substance, 
be a violation of the spirit of that treaty. 



Opposed to Reciprocal Free=Trade in 
Coal Between the United States and 
Canada. 

From the Congressional Record of June 23, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. The Senator [Mr. McCumber] 
spoke as one member of the commit- 
tee. All of the other Republican mem- 
bers of the committee thought that this 
reciprocity provision ought to be stricken 
out, and I will give the Senator [Mr. 
Bacon], if he desires, some of the rea- 
sons which influenced the committee in 
arriving at that conclusion. 

In the first place, personally, I did 
not believe that Canada would remove 
her duties upon coal. I think the policy 
of the Dominion government and the 
economic conditions in that country 
would render it impossible for Canada 
to take the duties entirely off of coal, 
at the present time, at any rate, and 
that we should be left with a duty of 
67 cents on coal and slack, as compared 
with 67 cents on coal and 15 cents on 
slack, as in the present law. Beyond 
that, the committee believed that if the 
duties were entirely removed both by 
Canada and the United States, the coal 
producers of the United States, espe- 
cially in Wyoming and to a considerable 
extent in West Virginia and in other 
sections of the country, would be sub- 
jected to unfair competition from the 
Canadian coal producers and the Cana- 
dian mines. 

As the Senate already knows, coal has 
been the subject of a duty from time 
immemorial. The Democratic Wilson 
Tariff law of 1894 fixed a duty upon 
coal; and I think the Democratic party, 
or what might be called the controlling 
element of the Democratic party, has al- 
ways been for a duty on coal. The 



States of Virginia and West Virginia, 
and, in fact, a great number of States, 
including Alabama and other Southern 
States, have always been opposed to the 
free admission of coal into the United 
States. 

No Benefit from Free Coal. 

Of course the interests of New Eng- 
land upon this question are somewhat 
different from those of other parts of 
the country. It has been assumed in 
some quarters that New England would 
be benefited by removing the duty on 
coal. I do not think so, to any consid- 
erable extent. The coal which comes to 
New England, or would come to New 
England from the maritime provinces, 
especially from Nova Scotia, is not of a 
quality which can compete, or which 
does compete, with the coal of West 
Virginia for steaming or any other pur- 
pose. New England is buying to-day 
coal from West Virginia, and to some ex- 
tent from Virginia and some other 
States, in competition with Canada and 
with Nova Scotia, when they could lay 
down coal in Boston, or at almost any 
other part of New England, at least a 
dollar a ton, and, in some cases, as much 
as $1.65 a ton less than we are obliged 
to pay for West Virginia coal, showing 
that the question of coal in New England 
is more a question of quality than of 
anything else, or of the Tariff. 

There were a number of people, coal 
producers of western Pennsylvania and 
of Ohio, and to some extent of Indiana 
and Illinois, who were very anxious to 
have this reciprocity provision adopted. 
To-day the Province of Ontario and cer- 
tain other portions of the Dominion of 
Canada get their coal supply from the 
United States, which is the natural 
source of that supply; and it undoubtedly 
would be true that the coal producers 
and coal miners of extreme western West 
Virginia, of western Pennsylvania, and 
of Ohio, and perhaps some parts of In- 
diana, would be greatly benefited by 
this reciprocity treaty provision, provided 
it went into practical effect. I think 
they are the only people in the country 
who are really actively for this reciproc- 
ity provision. 

The people of New England, I think, 
those who are not indifferent, would per- 
haps be willing to have the experiment 
tried. But I think there is no represen- 
tative of New England who desires to 
have the duty entirely removed from bl- 



386 



ALDRICH. SMITH. HALE. GALLINGER. BURTON. 



tuminous coal, as it might be under the 
provisions to which I have referred. 

After you leave this middle belt of the 
States I have named, to whose interest 
it would be to have reciprocity with 
Canada, you strike another part of the 
territory of the United States, perhaps 
the territory which is included in the 
States of North and South Dakota, and 
possibly Minnesota, which are now, I 
think, required by existing conditions to 
buy their coal from other parts of the 
United States. They may believe, and 
possibly it may be true— I think not, 
however — that they would be able to buy 
their coal lower if coal were on the free 
list, or if the duty were very largely 
decreased. 
Would Destroy Western Mining Interests. 

There Is another section of the coun- 
try, consisting of the States of Wyom- 
ing and Utah, that have large coal de- 
posits of a very good character; and the 
free importation of coal into this country 
would be absolutely destructive of the 
mining interests of those States, espe- 
cially of the State of Wyoming. I think 
I do not misstate matters when I say 
that they would have no possibility of 
competition with the coal mines directly 
north of them if the duty were entirely 
removed. 

Again, on the Pacific slope, the coal 
producers of Washington would have no 
possibility of competition with the coal 
miners of British Columbia, Vancouver, 
and that section of Canada. So that, 
with the exception of a small territory in 
the center of the country and another 
comparatively small territory directly 
west of that, I think the interests of 
almost the entire country are against 
the free importation of coal here. 

And as long as those of us sitting 
upon this side of the Chamber are in 
favor of the Protective principle, it is 
Impossible, in my opinion, to resist the 
conclusion that a reasonable duty ought 
to be maintained upon bituminous coal. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. When we 
took the duty off of bituminous coal a 
few years ago we did it on the theory 
that we would lower the price of coal to 
the consumer, did we not? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. And it did 
not operate to lower the price, as I recol- 
lect? 

Mr. ALDRICH. No; it did not. 



We Did Not Get Cheaper Coal, and We 
Lost the Revenue. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. So the at- 
tempt we made was an utter failure, and 
neither yielded revenue to the Govern- 
ment nor coal to the consumer at a re- 
duced price; nor did it solve the vexed 
question then confronting the country 
growing out of the coal strike? 

Mr. ALDRICH. That is true. 

Mr. HALE. And lost the revenue. 

Mr. ALDRICH. And lost the revenue. 
The Senator will remember that there Is 
no duty imposed by this act, and none 
under existing law, and none proposed, 
upon anthracite coal; and I think the 
section represented by the Senator from 
North Dakota is more dependent upon 
anthracite coal than bituminous coal. 
Of course, I assume that the manufac- 
turing establishments in that country 
use bituminous coal, which perhaps comes 
from the coal fields of Illinois, or possi- 
bly the western coal fields; I think not, 
however, from Wyoming. I think It 
comes from Illinois and the country 
around there. 

New England ers Not in Favor of Free 
Coal or Reciprocity. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, I de- 
sire simply to say that the people of 
New England are not in favor of free 
coal or reciprocity with Canada. There 
are certain gentlemen in New England, 
some manufacturers and some owners of 
coal mines in Nova Scotia, who want 
free coal. We had free coal not many 
years ago, for one year, and imported coal 
into the port of Boston — nearly a million 
tons — and it was not sold at a penny less 
than it sold before the duty was re- 
moved. 

Mr. BURTON. Is it not a fact that at 
the time of that importation there was 
a most unusual scarcity in the produc- 
tion of the mines of the United States? 

Mr. GALLINGER. That is true. 

Mr. BURTON. Some of them having 
ceased entirely. So that year is by no 
means a fair test as to whether the price 
would be reduced or not. 

Mr. GALLINGER. That is true; but It 
shows that the gentlemen who were so 
anxious for free coal at that time did not 
find it in their hearts to reduce from the 
price of the coal the amount they had 
been paying formerly In duties when it 
came into New England, they simply 
added that to the price of the coal. If 



GALLIXGER. WARREN. 



387 



we had reciprocity with Canada, we 
would in New England exchange good 
coal for poor coal; that is all. Our coal 
is very much superior to that of Nova 
Scotia. We do not want to go into a 
bargain of that kind. 



Trusts Have Accumulated a Fund 
With Which to Exploit Free=Trade 
Doctrines. 

From the Congressional Record of June 24, 
1909. 

FRANCIS E. WARREN, of Wyoming. 
An Eastern Senator may not say that 
there shall be no duty upon hides be- 
cause it does not do the farmers in the 
West any good, while meantime the 
Western Senators stand here Insisting 
that such duty does benefit the farmer, 
and are able abundantly to prove it. 

Mr. President, if there has been any 
argument presented here by him, or by 
anyone else, that serves to prove that the 
farmers do not get that benefit, I have 
failed to hear it. 

The boot and shoe and leather business 
was never more prosperous during any 
period in the life of this Nation; in fact, 
never was as prosperous, according to the 
showing made by statistics, as during 
these last twelve years, when the Tar- 
iff on hides has been exactly the same 
as that proposed by the Committee on 
Finance in the present bill. 

It seems that the great profits of the 
leather trusts, and the generous profits of 
the boot and shoe people, through the 
high Tariff imposed upon importations of 
boots and shoes brought into this coun- 
try, while they had over 77 per cent free 
raw material, and only 23 per cent taxed 
at almost a nominal figure, have tended 
to enable them to accumulate a great 
fund with which to exploit Free-Trade 
doctrines. 

Nei^er Did Affect tfie Price of Sfioes and 
Never Will. 

But it must be observed in this con- 
nection that neither the producers of 
hides, who are also great consumers of 
leather in harness, saddles, footwear, and 
so forth, nor the consumers of the prod- 
uct — the ordinary wearers of boots and 
shoes — who pay the bills, are here, or are 
protesting against the Dingley act. 

There are good reasons why the wear- 
ers of shoes are not here protesting, for 
the fact is it has never made one penny's 



difference in the price of shoes, and 
never will. In fact, no reduction is now 
promised in the price of boots and shoes 
along with the demand for free hides. 

I have not received a single line or let- 
ter or expressed wish from the packers, 
through any source whatever, to the ef- 
fect that they desire a duty on hides. 
If any other Senator has received any 
communication from the packers, I have 
not heard of it. I do not believe the 
packers are paying any attention to this 
legislation, notwithstanding the fact that 
every one of the communications from 
those who protest against a Tariff on 
hides rails against the beef packers. 

Those correspondents who are crowding 
this matter of free hides upon us so for- 
cibly are the middlemen — those who make 
their profits from the handling of hides 
and leather, much of it for export — and 
who want to enlarge that profit to the 
injury of the producer and at the same 
time give no benefit to the consumer. 

Assertions Denied. 

Mr. President, there have been eight 
or ten points alleged by those who au- 
thoritatively represent the advocates of 
free hides. I will give the points, and I 
want careful attention to them. They are 
as follows: 

(1) That the Tariff on hides was in- 
serted in the conference on the Dingley 
bill — and they insinuate that there was 
something surreptitious and uncanny 
about it, and that neither the Senate 
nor the House gave its consent to the 
legislation prior to the meeting of the 
conferees. 

(2) That the 15 per cent duty does not 
benefit the farmer. 

(3) That the packer gets the only ben- 
efit and all the benefit. 

(4) That to remove the Tariff would 
affect the consumer. 

(5) That the leather trade is lan- 
guishing because of the Tariff. 

(6) That the boot and shoe trade is 
languishing because of the Tariff. 

(7) That the quantity of domestic 
hides is decreasing. 

(8) That the present duty is not a 
Protective duty. 

(9) That the present duty is of no ac- 
count as a revenue tax. 

(10) That the packers absolutely con- 
trol domestic hides and dominate the 
prices. 

I deny the truth of each and all of 
these assertions. 



388 



WARREN. 



The Demand Originated with the Leather 
Trust. 

But, Mr. President, it has been said, 
and truly said, that a chain is only as 
strong as its weakest link. Among the 
campaigners in this free-hide propaganda 
are honorable men asking for free hides 
who believe that they ought to have 
them; but when you trace it back, this 
false charge of wrong practice in insert- 
ing taxed hides in the Dingley bill un- 
doubtedly originated with the leather 
trust, and possibly with some dishonor- 
able or misinformed boot and shoe men. 
It originated with men who do not know 
any better than to come before us and 
tell us what we ourselves as Senators did, 
and tell us wrongfully at that. Such 
)men as these are not in a position to 
teach me whether I, in raising cattle, 
get any benefit from a hide Tariff or not. 
I do not have to go to Massachusetts 
nor to Pennsylvania nor to the leather 
trust nor to anybody to ascertain whether 
a farmer gets any benefit from the duty 
on hides. 

The farmers are not here asking to 
have the duty taken off of hides. I know 
that there is one purported petition, with 
17 names on it, in the archives of this 
Senate, in which the signers say they are 
farmers. I know, also, that there are 
some thousands of names here on other 
petitions — and I will refer to them later 
— where they have had these "patent-in- 
side" prepared petitions sent, and with 
them letters of minute instruction, and 
they have been asking about everybody 
to sign and send them here. 

/\lot a Consumer Asking for Free Hides. 

There is not a consumer, to my knowl- 
edge, who has been here asking for free 
hides. There has been just one class of 
people here, the tanners, the leather 
trust, and the boot and shoe men, those 
who stand between the farmer and the 
consumer, and demand that they shall 
take extra toll from us now by denying to 
the farmer the benefit of a Protective 
Tariff, amounting to a dollar and a half 
to two dollars a hide, insisting upon the 
benefit of the 1 to 3 cents that it Is 
claimed is added by the Tariff to the 
cost of every pair of shoes; this without 
giving any compensation to the farmer 
and without giving even a promise of 
compensation in the way of lower prices 
to the Tvearer of boots an(^ shoes or the 



man who uses harness or leather goods; 
in case the Tariff on hides is removed. 

So here we are between 11,000,000 farm- 
ers or more — perhaps 12,000,000 — as 
against less than a quarter of a million 
of workers in all kinds of tanning and 
manufacturing of leather. The latter pro- 
pose to rob directly these 11,000,000 or 
more of people, or so many of them as 
may raise cattle, for the benefit not of 
the millions of wearers of shoes; they 
promise nothing of that kind; but they 
want somewhere between the tanner and 
the manufacturer of shoes to put this 
amount of duty money into their own 
pockets. The tanners come before us 
with a lie in their mouths as to what we 
have done heretofore. They come here 
with statements that can not be substan- 
tiated as to their industry, whether it is 
languishing or not, and it finally ends 
with the straight proposition that they 
want to make 1, 3, or 5 cents, as the 
case may be, on each pair of shoes for 
which they sell the leather, without giv- 
ing any consideration either to the pro- 
ducer of the hides or to the consumer of 
the leather, 

flfay Have Kept Blaine from the White 
House. 

Mr. President, the next prominent fea- 
ture of nearly all this literature has been 
the letter of James G. Blaine. I am not 
one who would discredit James G. Blaine. 
I was one of his admirers and followers. 
There never was an opportunity that I 
had either to deposit a vote in his inter- 
ests or to say a good word for him when 
I was not for Blaine. The fact is that 
many years ago, when he was very en- 
thusiastic over a certain line of reciproc- 
ity, he made the statement that hides 
should be free, and wrote the letter re- 
ferred to in support of the great scheme 
of reciprocity which has been discredited 
by Congress and this country since. What 
has been done here in this body in car- 
rying out what he laid down as the great 
principle which we would follow? Mr, 
Blaine may have been right from his 
viewpoint, but that declaration, along 
with some others, was perhaps what 
kept Mr. Blaine from occupying the White 
House; and Mr. Blaine's proposition of 
reciprocity has been laid aside as one of 
those valuable but not usable ornaments 
of tlie nation. 

A Monstrous Proposition. 

So, Mr, President, when you get down. 



WARREN. 



389 



as we would say in the Middle Western 
States, a little nearer the trail, where 
the representatives of 700 firms get to- 
gether and resolve to adopt as their 
motto: "Equal rights to all and special 
privileges to none;" and charge 90,000,000 
people one-fifth of a cent a pound more 
for meat, you reach the milk in the co- 
coanut. And all this so that they can 
line the capacious pockets of a few men, 
to the detriment of the raiser of hides 
and the wearer of shoes. In all this there 
Is no promise of lower shoes. They un- 
dertake to place themselves right with 
these eleven or twelve million farmers, 
by stating, "you shall have your price; 
you shall have that much more, one- 
fifth of a cent for beef, and we will 
make these 90,000,000 people contribute 
the one-fifth of a cent a pound for that 
which they must eat every day, in order 
that the people engaged in the tanning 
of leather and in the manufacturing of 
shoes may have the 1 or 2 cents, or 3 
cents, or whatever it may be more of 
profit on a pair of shoes." 

Has there ever been a more monstrous 
proposition before the Senate? 

The Fallacy of Free Raw Materials. 

I want to say to my friend the Senator 
from Texas [Mr. Bailey], who I am 
sorry is not in the Chamber, that he 
states what is a fact when he says that 
this country will not long support any 
Tariff bill under which it is proposed to 
Tob the agriculturist on the plea that his 
product is raw material. To the man who 
makes your clothes, Mr. President, the 
cloth is raw material; to the manufac- 
turer who makes that cloth wool is the 
raw material; but to the man who raises 
the wool it is the finished product. 

I want to say here that is simply the 
keystone of the arch of Protection that 
these people propose to tear down when 
they undertake to call wool, coal, and 
hides "raw materials" and make them 
free, while Protecting manufacturers of 
the same. Not only are the tanning in- 
dustry and the great leather trust seek- 
ing to get free hides, but the nose of the 
camel is intruded into the tents in their 
desire to put every one of these Items 
and others, especially the farmers' prod- 
ucts, upon the free list. 

That Tariff bill which undertakes to 
make free raw material of the farmer's 
finished product, if carried through here 
once, win be the death knell of the Pro- 
tective Tariff in the United States until 



there has been a new alignment and a 
new adjustment all around. 

The great cry is, "We must export." 
Of what value is it to the United States 
to employ a baker's dozen of men in a 
tannery somewhere along the Atlantic 
coast, foreigners at that, probably, so 
that tramp ships may bring over as bal- 
last the hides from the Argentine Re- 
public, and that we may send them back 
in the shape of exported leather at the 
expense of stripping our great forests of 
tanning material? Of what value is it? 

Now Has the Shoe Industry Fared? 

So much for the tanners. The next 
thing we turn to is boots and shoes. Let 
us see what the makers of boots and 
shoes in the United States did under free 
hides and under taxed hides. 

The value of their product in 1880 was 
$166,000,000 plus. In 1890 it was $220,000,- 
000 plus. In 1900 it was $259,000,000 
minus. It will be observed that in that 
period of ten years when they had abso- 
lutely free hides they had increased only 
from $220,000,000 plus to $258,000,000 plus. 
From that time to 1905, five years instead 
of ten, they had increased to $320,000,000 
plus. 

Under free hides they increased 2% per 
cent per year, and under dutiable hides 
they increased over iVz per cent, about 
100 per cent difference in favor of taxed 
hides, to the boot and shoe makers in 
those comparative years. 

When Massachusetts and other States 
here and there say it must be Free- 
Trade upon everything they buy and 
Tariff duty upon everything they have 
to sell, there will be a parting of the 
ways and a substantial change in the 
Tariff situation of this country. The 
Tariff map will look decidedly different 
when the matter is carried to a final 
issue. 

How do you expect the farmers will 
feel about a Tariff bill which exempts 
from duty and makes free those things 
upon which they are absolutely dependent 
for a reasonable profit, like hides, when 
at the same time they are called upon 
to submit to 35 per cent ad valorem 
Protection upon harness, saddles, and 
other leather articles with which they 
conduct their business? 

/s It Fair to the Farmer? 

Is it not a little pathetic that when 
a Wyoming farmer kills a beef creature 
he may be compelled to haul the hide 



390 



WARREN. LaFOLLETTE. 



away and bury it to prevent its becom- 
ing a nuisance, while at the same time 
the boots he wears when doing this duty 
and the harness worn by his horses which 
haul the hide away to the dumping place 
or the saddle on which he rides and 
around which is fastened a Protected 
piece of cordage, its end being looped 
about the hide to be pulled away and 
buried, have all been assessed against 
him at good rates? 

And yet this is just what his condi- 
tion was during the years when there was 
no Tariff on hides and when the Leather 
Trust had full sway and brought in as 
ship ballast its foreign hides. Small 
wonder that the packer was driven to 
tan the hides taken from his slaughtered 
animals. 

Is it fair to ask the farmer to destroy, 
to put out of existence, valuable prop- 
erty, as hides certainly are, simply for 
the lack of a 15 per cent revenue Tariff, 
if you will, in order that foreign coun- 
tries may be enabled to sell their hides 
to this country, transported to the 
Leather Trust by tramp ships, that have 
no reason to ask our Protection, simply 
that the Leather Trust may make a lit- 
tle larger profit and pay a little larger 
percentage upon the swollen volume of 
watered stock that the parent company 
and the constituent companies of the 
trust have inflicted upon a long-suffering 
public? 

This condition prevailed in the Western 
and Rocky Mountain States. 

No Tariff Will Stand Long Which Does 
Not Have the Support of the Farmer. 

I stand for the farmer, Mr. President, 
and I shall continue to stand for the 
farmer. Let me say to those Senators 
who think that because of their heeding 
requests from local tanners who may 
live in their town or State, they are 
bettering their political fortunes by fol- 
lowing these solicitations or desires. 



they may have in their States another 
class of people to meet when the time 
next comes, and that class is the farm- 
ers. 

I can say to you that no Tariff bill was 
ever made, and no Tariff bill will ever be 
made, that will stand long which does 
not have the reasonable support of the 
farmer, and no representative can long 
have that support who maintains that 
the manufacturers of this country shall 
have Protection, but that their raw ma- 
terial, which is the finished product of 
the farmer, shall be free. No man will 
be elected President of the United States, 
and no man will occupy office very long, 
in my judgment, who follows that policy. 

The producer of beef, mutton, and the 
hides which grow upon them and are a 
part of them, should have his part of a 
Protective Tariff as a matter of right If 
he demands it. He demands but little, 
nothing compared with the others, but 
this he demands, just as the woolmen 
have demanded for years a Tariff on 
wool. 

The removal of the Tariff on hides will 
lessen the value of every head of meat 
cattle In the United States, whether It 
be the poor widow's cow, the farmer's 
little bunch of beef stock, the cattle of 
the great feeders, who buy from the 
ranges and fatten the stock on grain In 
the Middle West, or the stock of the man 
on the plains who raises cattle for such 
feeding. 



Labor Cost in This Country Is 
Double That of England. 

From the Congressional Record of June 25, 
J909. 
ROBERT M. LaFOLLETTE, of Wis- 
consin. On page 25 of his report, Mr. 
Clark gives the following table of wages 
In the worsted Industry in Italy, France, 
England and the United States: 



Italy. 

\ 

Sorters ^-^^ 

Washers or dyers 3.00 

Carders 2.30 

Gill boxes 2.30 

Comb minders 2.30 

Boss fplnner " 7.00 

Mule spinner 5.80 

Ring spinner 2.30 

Weavers 3.00 

Fullers and pressers 3.50 



France. 



England. 



United 
States. 



.6.40 


$7.30 


$12.50 


4.25 


5.60 


7.00 


4.00 


3.90 


6.00 


3.70 


3.00 


6.00 


3.70 


3.00 


6.00 


9.25 


12.00 


18.00 


6.20 


7.30 


9.50 


4.00 


3.00 


6.00 


4.60 


4.00 


9.00 


4.25 


6.00 


7.00 



LaFOLLETTE. cummins. OLIVER. 



301 



This table shows that the wages are 
lowest In Italy, higher in France, still 
higher in England, and highest in the 
United States. Mr. Clark also adds that 
the cost of living is lowest in Italy, 
higher in England, still higher in France, 
and highest in the United States. At the 
same time, as would have been expected, 
the productive efficiency of labor is low- 
est in Italy, higher in France, still higher 
in England, and highest in the United 
States. Mr. Clark does not furnish any 
figures that would show the extent to 
which the greater efficiency in the United 
States offsets the greater cost of labor. 
Mr. Clark's table shows that wages in 
the worsted industry in this country are 
from 17 to 125 per cent higher than in 
England. 

To be on the safe side, as a Protection- 
ist, I shall assume in my calculations 
that the labor cost in this country is 
double that of England, thus making no 
allowance for the higher efficiency of la- 
bor in this country. 



Should the Duty on Scrap Iron Be 
the Same as the Duty on Pig Iron? 

From the Congressional Record of June 25, 
1909. 

ALBERT B. CUMMINS, of Iowa. Mr. 
President, it will be observed that this 
amendment takes from the paragraph 
scrap iron and scrap steel, to be dealt 
with hereafter as the Senate may desire. 
I intend to follow this amendment by an- 
other reducing the duty on pig iron to 
$1.50 per ton. But the first thing upon 
which I desire the judgment of the Sen- 
ate, I do not know what it will be, is 
the proposition of combining in a single 
paragraph and under a single duty pig 
iron and scrap iron. "While they bear 
some relation to each other with respect 
to the propriety of the duty imposed 
upon one or the other, in my opinion 
there ought to be no duty on scrap iron 
and scrap steel. These are purely waste 
material. They have already served their 
purpose commercially and they have al- 
ready paid their duty officially. 

As is well known, in this country the 
railways are the large producers of scrap 
iron and scrap steel, and there is neither 
philosophy nor justice in adding to the 
value of this material, which is simply 
the accumulation of use, by putting the 
duty that is proposed upon it. The duty 
simply adds so much to the cost of iron 



and steel. All Senators know that in one 
of the processes for making steel, scrap 
iron and old steel are necessary ma- 
terials. The open-hearth process, which 
is now rapidly coming into favor, and 
which bids fair to displace the Bessemer 
process, requires for its successful oper- 
ation a certain proportion of scrap iron 
and scrap steel. It seems to me that we 
are 

Pushing the Doctrine of Protection to an 
Undue and Unjustifiable Length 

to attempt to impose upon this waste 
the duty that we impose upon pig iron. 

I realize that there is some apprehen- 
sion on the part of some members of 
the committee that we might be de- 
frauded by those who enter the practice 
of breaking up pig iron and importing 
it as scrap iron and scrap steel, but it 
is entirely feasible and it is altogether 
easy to provide, if you impose any duty 
upon scrap iron and scrap steel, such 
limitations and restrictions as will abso- 
lutely prevent any deceit or deception 
of this character. 

I want, first, therefore, a vote on the 
amendment to eliminate scrap iron and 
scrap steel from this paragraph. After 
that I intend to offer an amendment re- 
ducing the duty on pig iron itself. There 
is no justification for a duty of $2.50 per 
ton on pig iron. I am not going into the 
details of it. I have already treated it 
at some length, and every Senator here 
is familiar in a general way at least 
with the production of this material. It 
is the basic material for the smaller inde- 
pendent manufacturers. I do not claim 
that all duty should be removed, but we 
ought to reduce his burden to the lowest 
practicable point. 

Every Ton of Scrap Displaces a Ton of 

Pig. 

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. President, every ton 
of scrap that enters into the manufac- 
ture of iron displaces just a little more 
than a ton of pig iron, because scrap, 
having once been manufactured, the 
waste in the use of scrap is less than 
attends the manufacture of iron from pig. 
Of course, scrap not being a manufac- 
tured article, there is no Protection in- 
volved so far as the producers of scrap 
are concerned; but inasmuch as every 
ton of scrap displaces a ton of pig iron, 
it is necessary for the Protection of our 
manufacturers of pig iron that the same 
Protection be allowed on scrap coming 



392 



OLlVmi. BAOON. bUkTON. 



into the country as is allowed on pig 
iron. 

Oriental Compeiition Knocking ai Our 
Doors. 

Replying to the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Cummins] with regard to the duty on 
pig iron, I send to the desk and ask to 
have read an extract from an article 
which was published in the Review of 
Reviews in February, written by a na- 
, tive of China, of English or American 
; parentage, with regard to the advance 
that is being made in the Far East in 
the manufacture of pig iron. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without ob- 
jection, the Secretary will read as re- 
quested. 
The Secretary read as follows: 

Fifteen hundred tons of pig iron from 
the iron and steel works of Hanyang, 
China, traveled 600 miles down the 
Yangtse River and 14,000 miles by sea 
and were laid down in Brooklyn, N. Y., 
in 1907, at $17.50 a ton. Thus did com- 
mercial competition come knocking at our 
doors to serve notice that the new China 
was no longer a surmise, but a fact, 
Under semi-official management 3,500 
workmen at Hanyang turn out daily 500 
. tons of pig iron and 250 tons of steel. 
They made the rails and much other con- 
structive material for the 750 miles of 
Peking-Hankow Railroad and for most of 
the other Chinese lines since then, be- 
sides exporting in 1907, 37,000 tons of pig 
and manufactured iron. To-day they are 
putting up another plant for the manu- 
facture of cars, steel bridges, and other 
structural material. That is a partial ex- 
pression of the new China, and in such 
language there is no equivocation. ("The 
China That Is," by David Lambuth, the 
American Review of Reviews, February, 
1909.) 

Mr. BACON. Will the Senator permit 
me to ask him who are the proprietors 
— the owners — of the iron industry in 
China, the product of which has just been 
given ? 

Mr. OLIVER. I really do not know, 
but that article, which is a very inter- 
esting one, states that it is made under 
governmental supervision. So I suppose 
the Government perhaps has something 
to do with it. 

Not Owned by Americans. 

Mr. BACON. It is not owned by 
Americans? 

Mr. OLIVER. Oh, no; not at all. 

Mr. BACON. I will ask the Senator, 
with his perrfiission, what was the expla- 
nation of this importation of that iron 
which was brought to New York. Was 
it brought for a specific purpose, or sent 
as a sample? 



Mr. OLIVER. The article does not 
state, but it is presumed that if any 
person would import 1,500 tons of pig 
iron, he would do it as a commercial 
proposition. It was delivered in Brook- 
lyn at $17.50, which confessedly is less 
than our manufacturers can make it and 
transport it to Brooklyn for. 

Now, Mr. President, this manufacture 
of pig iron in the Far East, of course, 
is a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, 
but the cloud that hangs over us from 
Germany is one that is imminent and 
threatening. When we come to a dis- 
cussion of the pig-iron duty, I think I 
have facts I can present that will prove 
conclusively that unless we maintain 
this or a better rate of duty on pig iron 
we are going to surrender a large part 
of our trade to the manufacturers of the 
German Empire. 

Furnace ii/len Protest. 
Mr. BURTON. The strongest protests 
which I have received against the Payne 
bill have been from the independent fur- 
nace men on the Ohio River in the neigh- 
borhood of Ashland, Ky., from Ironton, 
Ohio, and from the Mahoning Valley, who 
say that if scrap can come in for a less 
duty than pig iron, their business will 
be very seriously impaired. - 

If this proposition is ridiculous, as 
has been, I think, rather carelessly al- 
leged, we have been having a ridiculous, 
schedule in the years that are past.. 
Under the law as it now is, and as it 
has been for many years, the duty on 
scrap iron is the same as that on pig 
iron. It is now $4 on pig iron and also) 
$4 on scrap iron and scrap steel. Busi- 
ness has adjusted itself to that uniform- 
ity of rates, and in reducing this to $2.50' 
a cut is made, which is all that should' 
be asked of the furnace men. 

Scrap iron has the same manufacture- 
ing value as pig iron in the production 
of steel, and should bear the same rate of 
duty. A ton of scrap takes the place of 
a ton of pig iron. In the manufacture^ 
of steel by the open-hearth furnace^ 
method, the furnaces may be chargedl 
with 20 per cent scrap and 80 per cent 
pig iron, or vice versa. The largest ag- 
gregate producer of scrap in the United! 
States is the farmer. The largest pro- 
ducer and consumer is the steel corpora- 
tion. With a 50-cent duty on scrap, pig- 
iron would be broken up into scrap forms; 
and imported as scrap, when the United! 
States would become the dumping groundl 



I 



BURTON. ALDRICH. CRMVFORD. 



393 



for scrap from all over the world and 
many of the blast furnaces for making 
pig iron would be closed down. 

Should Pay the Same Rate of Duty. 

Scrap iron and scrap steel have always 
been considered the same as pig iron, and 
should be so considered now. These three 
commodities should pay the same rate of 
duty. Our opinion is that it should not 
be lower than $3 per ton. The very low 
rate of duty provided for scrap iron and 
scrap steel in the Payne bill will bear 
heavily against the merchant blast fur- 
naces in the East, and will tend to re- 
duce the value of their product by com- 
pelling them to compete with cheap for- 
eign scrap. These eastern furnaces are 
entitled to the same rate of Protection 
against cheap scrap that they receive 
against foreign pig iron. A very large 
quantity of scrap iron and steel has been 
accumulated by the railroad . companies 
during the last eighteen months, and 
they will offer the same for sale as soon 
as they can afford to replace with raw 
material. 

A Tariff of 50 cents a ton on scrap 
would shut down every southern blast 
furnace. The average consumption of 
scrap iron and scrap steel for the past 
three years at a plant of the steel cor- 
poration located at Worcester, Mass., was 
73,000 tons, and the consumption last 
year of one of its plants at Philadelphia 
was 110,000 tons. Every bit of this scrap 
was used in the manufacture of open- 
hearth steel. 

Same Rate in All Previous Tariffs. 

Mr. ALDRICH. All previous Tariffs 
have fixed a duty at the same rate. The 
present law fixes a duty of $4 a ton upon 
pig iron and scrap iron of all kinds. The 
difficulty about the thing is that, if you 
put a duty upon pig iron at one rate and 
a duty upon scrap iron at another rate, 
all the pig iron will be introduced in the 
United States as scrap iron. It is easy 
enough to break pig iron into pieces and 
have it come into the country as scrap 
-iron. I have never yet seen a definition 
that I was willing to trust as to what 
constitutes scrap iron and what consti- 
tuted what might be pig iron or some 
other description of iron broken up into 
pieces for the purpose of introducing it 
at a lower rate of duty; in fact, I do not 
myself quite see what would prevent the 
highest forms of steel — take, for instance, 
steel that might be worth 6, 8, or 10 cents 



a pound — being introduced into this coun- 
try as scrap steel. It is an extremely 
difllcult subject to handle, and the mak- 
ers of Tariffs heretofore have tried to 
get over that difllculty by fixing the duty 
upon scrap iron and scrap steel and pig 
iron at the same rate. 

There are certain manufacturers in the 
Eastern part of the country along the 
Atlantic coast who desire to have lower 
rates on scrap iron and steel, because 
they use it as a raw material. There is 
no question that a large class of 
manufacturers along the Atlantic sea- 
board would get an advantage by having 
scrap steel and scrap iron admitted at a 
lower rate than pig iron, because for their 
purposes they answer the same use. 

Would Cut Down the Use of Pig Iron. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Does the Senator 
from Rhode Island state to me frankly 
that he thinks that scrap iron from Bel- 
gium or elsewhere across the Atlantic 
Ocean, brought to the Atlantic coast, 
would jeopardize and change the indus- 
try of the production of pig iron in the 
districts west of the Allegheny Moun-^ 
tains? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I say very frankly to 
the Senator from South Dakota that if 
there should be considerable importations 
of scrap iron and scrap steel into the 
Atlantic Coast States for use in foundry 
purposes, and for various things of that 
sort for which it would be used, to that 
extent it would cut down the use of pig 
iron for the producers of pig iron 
throughout the country, wherever they 
are located. I think that is perfectly 
plain, and must be apparent to every- 
one. 



Why Agricultural Implements Should 
Not Be Put on the Free List. 

From the Congressional Record of June 2S, 
1909. 
NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. . . . The International Harvester 
Company have not only large plants in 
the United States, but they have, as the 
Senator from Minnesota has already sug- 
gested, large plants in Canada, and they 
are erecting large plants in three or four 
foreign countries. They fix the prices for 
their own product both here and abroad. 
I do not say that they fix the prices of 
the agricultural implements in the 
United States, because I do not think 



394 



ALDRICH. BEVERIDGE. GALLINGER. 



they do, but they fix the price of their 
own products, which are well known 
throughout the world. 

If this company should make agricul- 
tural implements in Germany or in 
France or in Canada more cheaply than 
they could in the United States, they 
might transfer the manufacture alto- 
gether to those countries and sell their 
product in the United States at the same 
price they do now, because they have no 
competitors in that field, according to 
the Senator from Georgia. 

The sole result of this suggested legis- 
lation might be to enable the Interna- 
tional Harvester Company to make their 
machines in Belgium and send them to 
the United States and sell them here at 
their own prices, having manufactured 
them at a less cost abroad than here. If 
there were no other reason why the 
amendment of the Senator from Georgia 
should not be adopted, that is a first- 
class reason, according to my idea. 

Aside from that, as I stated before, 
Protectionists — and I mean to include all 
grades of Protectionists so far as I know 
— are not in favor of putting manufac- 
tured articles on the free list, because, in 
a certain case, there happens to be a 
combination for the time being in their 
manufacture. They believe that that 
action would necessarily prevent compe- 
tition in the United States and would 
put the whole industry into the hands of 
existing combinations beyond recovery. It 
seems to me there can be no question 
about that at all. So, I can not under- 
stand how any Senator who believes in 
caring for American industries should be 
in favor of putting agricultural imple- 
ments upon the free list. 



Prices of Harvesting Machinery in 
the United States and in the Prin- 
cipal Countries of Europe. 

From the Congressional Record of June 25, 
J909. 
ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE, of Indiana. 
Just a minute, before the vote is taken. 
Some days ago, when this question came 
up, I made an investigation of the con- 
sular reports. I have made a compila- 
tion here, which shows the remarkable 
fact that the International Harvester 
Company, instead of selling Its machin- 
ery abroad cheaper than it does here, 



sells it cheaper here than it does abroad. 
It gets more for its agricultural machin- 
ery in foreign countries, according to 
these consular reports, than the same 
machines bring here. If that be true, 
Mr. President, it is certain that the In- 
ternational Harvester Company is per- 
fectly indifferent whether these machines 
do or do not go on the free list. The 
exportations of these machines by the 
International Harvester Company, ac- 
cording to consular reports, bring it a 
greater price than it gets for the ma- 
chines it sells here. So far as the Har- 
vester Company is concerned, I think 
it would welcome Free Trade. But by 
putting these machines on the free list 
I can see the possibility of injuring such 
manufacturers of agricultural imple- 
ments as are not in the trust and yet 
not helping the farmers a bit. There are 
several of them in my State. I think 
there are a few in every State in the 
Union. 

The International Harvester people do 
not in the least need this duty. I do 
not know whether the independent manu- 
facturers need it or not; but if anybody 
does need it, they do. 

Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator very 
aptly suggests that he does not know 
whether the independent manufacturers 
need this Protection or not. I want to 
suggest to the Senator that putting these 
articles on the free list may be a very 
great advantage to the Harvester Trust 
in this respect: They now have a factory 
in Canada; they are about establishing- 
factories In Germany, in France, and 
very likely in other countries. 

If they can get these machines manu- 
factured cheaper abroad than they are 
manufactured here, putting them on the 
free list would be a great advantage to 
them in the way of enabling them to ex- 
port them to this country. 

Comparative Statement of Prices. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I think I will put 
this compilation in the Record, If there 
should be any mistake about the figures — 
though I am sure there is not, because 
It has been very carefully compiled — it 
can be corrected. I should like to put 
that in the Record. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without ob- 
jection, it will be printed in the Record. 

The statement is as follows: 



PILES. SMITH. BACON. 



395 



Comparative statement of the retail prices of binders, mowers, reapers, and rakes in the 
United States and the principal European countries, as shown by the reports of Bureau 
of Ma^ntfactures, United States Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Binder. Reaper. Mower. Rake. 

United States $125.00 $75.00 $50.00 $22.00 

Great Britain 135.16 81.22 55.80 26.70 

France 173.70 105.18 63.69 29.91 

Germany 203.00 113.00 67.50 27.00 

Denmark 167.50 91.12 60.30 30.82 

Sweden 160.80 80.04 60.30 24.12 

Hungary 243.60 121.80 81.20 36.54 

South Russia 169.95 96.82 66.95 27.29 

North Russia 180.25 91.70 66.95 29.05 

West Siberia 187.98 101.97 72.10 30.90 

Note — The foreign prices are taken from the official reports published in the Daily 
Consular and Trade Reports. Issue of February 23, 1909 (No. 3413) ; issue of March 3, 
1909 (No. 3420) ; issue of Apr il 8, 1909 (No. 3450). 

American Workingmen Would Be at the Also True of Sewing Machines. 

Mercy of the Harvester Trust. The other day the Senator from Mis- 
Mr. PILES. The Senator said, and I sissippi [Mr. McLaurin] offered an 
think correctly, that every American ma- amendment to put all agricultural imple- 
chine that is sent abroad carries with it "^ents and sewing machines on the free 
the wages of an American workman. list. I ran over in my own mind the 

^_,^ ^ ,,. ^. r^ ^ • -i number of American workmen who would 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Certamly. ^^ ^^^^^^.^ ^^^ ^^ employment if that 

Mr. PILES. Such being the case, I ^^^^.q ^o^e, and I figured It into the tens 
should like to ask the Senator this ques- of thousands. Every one of those Ameri- 
tion: Suppose the International Harves- cans is a consumer of our products; ho 
ter Company having, as it has, large is a consumer of the agricultural products 
manufacturing plants in the United of the farms; he is a consumer of the 
States, should establish similar plants in work of every loom; he is a user of the 
Germany or any other foreign country products of every factory; and is a patron 
where its machines can be manufactured of every other employee under our in- 
at a less cost than in this country; would dustrial system. I would no more throw 
not the American workman be at the the markets of this country open to the 
mercy of the Harvester Company if its free importations of that kind of prod- 
machines were admitted free of duty? ucts than I would burn the humble home 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Yes; and I of the artisan, mechanic, and American 

doubt whether the price would be low- laboring- man. 
ered to Americans. 

Mr. PILES. In the case of a strike 
against a reduction in the American wage ^ Southern Democrat Favors a Pro- 
scale, all the Harvester Company would ^^^^^ ^^^.^ Long Staple Cot= 
have to do to brmg its workmen to its * *^ 
terms would be to import its machines ton. 

free of duty from its foreign factory un- From the Congressional Record of June 28, 

til its workmen acceded to its demands. 1^09. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Certainly. AUGUSTUS O. BACON, of Georgia. 

Mr. President, I agree entirely with the , ^ . , 

admirable statement of the honored Sen- ^^- President, the paragraph as it now 
ator from Washington. It would not only stands in the bill puts all cotton on the 
be a most extraordinary competition for free list. The purpose of the amendment 
us to invite, but it would absolutely put is to remove long-staple cotton from the 
the American workingman in the agri- free list. So far as relates to the com- 
cultural-implement factories of our coun- mon article of cotton, that which is gen- 
try out of business; and if this course erally known as the "commercial cot- 
is to be pursued, the wage-earner, who ton" of the country, it is entirely proper 
is the customer of the farmer and the and in accordance with the wishes of 
patron of all other producers within the those who are most interested in cotton 
radius of his necessities, would suffer a that it should be on the free list. I 
loss of purchasing power. suppose ninety-nine one-hundredths or 



396 



BACON. ALDRICH. 



more of all the cotton that Is raised Is 
of the common upland variety. 

It may be a matter of some little in- 
terest and somewhat of surprise to the 
Senate to know that in the year 1907 — 
the date of the last Statistical Abstract 
— there were, in round numbers, 210,000 
bales of what is known as "long-staple" 
cotton imported into the country. It Is 
a class of cotton which is not used at 
all for the ordinary manufactures of cot- 
ton. It is used only in the manufacture 
of very high class goods, such as cotton 
laces, a very high grade of knit under- 
wear, and things of that kind. Almost 
every pound of the Egyptian cotton goes 
to one section of the country — New Eng- 
land. I do not suppose a single pound 
of it comes south of New York City; 
certainly not, unless it is to New Jersey 
and possibly Pennsylvania. 

I should not be in favor of putting the 
same duty upon long-staple cotton that 
is put upon wool, because I regard the 
latter as a Protective duty. But I 
should be glad to see wool and long-staple 
cotton put upon the same basis as far 
as a legitimate, reasonable, revenue duty 
is concerned. There is no reason in 
the world that can be urged in favor of 
a revenue duty upon wool that can not be 
urged with equal strength in favor of a 
revenue duty upon long-staple cotton. 

The Speech Rather an Extraordinary One. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I think the speech of 
the Senator from Georgia is rather an 
extraordinary one. I was curious to see 
what argument the Senator would adduce 
for the imposition of this duty. The 
Senator says there are 100,000 bales of 
long-staple cotton produced in the United 
States. 

Mr. BACON. Less than that. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Less than that. It is 
entirely produced in three States— in 
Georgia and South Carolina and Florida. 
He says that the area can not be In- 
creased, and that the production can not 
be increased largely. 

Mr, BACON. I did not say it could 
not be. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Well, probably it 
could not be. If the Senator will permit 
me 

Mr. BACON. I will state, in order that 
the Senator may have it accurately, that 
it can not be enlarged beyond a certain 
distance from the seashore. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I supposed, of course. 



the Senator from Georgia Wa§ going to 
ask for the imposition of this duty merely 
for Protective purposes under the guise 
of a duty for revenue only; but it seems 
that there is no Protection in it, ac- 
cording to the Senator's statement. It 
Is only a question of imposing 4 cents a 
pound on Egyptian cotton. Now, Egyp- 
tian cotton does not compete with the 
cotton produced in the United States In 
color and in texture. It has a use of Its 
own, and the long- staple cotton raised 
In Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida 
does not compete and can not compete 
In the large part of uses with the Egyp- 
tian cotton at all. Egyptian cotton, as 
the Senator says, is used in the manu- 
facture of laces. There are very few 
laces made in the United States. 

Why Egyptian Cotton Should Not Be Duti- 
able. 

The rates which are imposed under the 
amendment which I suggested a few 
days ago are not upon such laces as are 
made in the United States, and not a 
pound of Egyptian cotton imported into 
the United States is used at all in the 
manufacture of that class of laces. 
Egyptian cotton goes into fabrics of all 
kinds where the particular color and par- 
ticular texture and particular length of 
staple are necessary. It is used in the 
development and diversification of cotton 
making in every State in the Union. It 
is used very largely in the Senator's 
own State, and it will be used very 
largely in the State of South Carolina, 
because in the manufacture of certain 
fabrics in common use they are obliged 
to buy Egyptian cotton. 

I make this proposition: That a duty 
of 4 cents a pound on Egyptian cotton 
would be added to the cost of Egyptian 
cotton imported in the United States. 
There is no competition here. Every cent 
of it will be added to the cost of the 
cotton that is imported, and every cent 
of it will be added to the cost of the 
fabrics which are made from cotton. It 
Is mixed with the cotton grown in all the 
cotton-growing States of the Union, 

There is no woman in the State of 
Georgia to-day, probably, who is not 
wearing garments that are made from 
long-staple cotton, from Egyptian and 
other cotton of that size. It is in use 
In every family in the State of Georgia. 
The duty will be added to the cost. 
There is no escape from it. It will add to 



I 



ALDRICH. BACON. TALIAFERRO. 



897 



the cost of every pound of Egyptian cot- 
ton brought to the United States and to 
the cost of every article made of Egyptian 
cotton. For what good? For Protec- 
tion? No; the Senator from Georgia is 
not willing to admit that it is for Pro- 
tection. The Senator from Georgia has 
voted consistently and persistently for 
free wool and for free everything else. 

Calhoun Placed the First Protective Duty 
on Cotton. 

I can not conceive how the Senator 
from Georgia, with his well-known views' 
upon all these subjects, can possibly ask 
the Senate to adopt a Protective duty 
or high duty upon an article not pro- 
duced in the United States when he says 
himself it can have no effect upon the 
producers in the United States. 

When this matter was up In the Senate 
before, the Senator from Georgia had a 
colloquy with the Senator from Texas, 
in which both Senators agreed that there 
was a duty upon cotton in all the earlier 
years, and it was taken off for the bene- 
fit of the manufacturers. Now, let us 
see what the facts were in that respect: 
The duty on cotton was first placed in 
the act of 1816 by Mr. Calhoun and his 
associates. It remained upon the duti- 
able list until 1846. 

There is no justification for it as a 
revenue duty. If it is imposed, it will 
add 5 or 6 cents a pound to the cost 
of every article and every fabric in which 
sea-island cotton is used, because noth- 
ing can take the place either in color 
and in texture and in length of staple. 
Why should the Senate of the United 
States be asked to impose this duty of 
4 cents a pound or 30 per cent ad 
valorem upon this article which is not 
made in the United States, which can not 
be made here, and which, with the lim- 
ited amount of importations, would be 
simply added to the cost of the fabrics 
made in this country? 

Democratic Doctrine of a Tariff for Rev- 
enue. 

Mr. BACON. I will read what I do 
not think has been read, although refer- 
ence has been made to the Walker re- 
port several times, the cardinal principles 
upon which R. J. Walker thought should 
be based the framing of a Tariff bill. I 
will read them. There are six. 

First 



Of course, the first one is a matter of 
economy 

First. That no more money should be 
collected than is necessary for the wants 
of the Government, economically admin- 
istered. 

Second. That no duty be imposed on 
any article above the lowest rate which 
will yield the largest amount of revenue. 

Third. That below such rate discrim- 
ination may be made, descending in the 
scale of duties, or, for imperative reasons, 
the article may be placed in the list of 
those free from all duty. 

Fourth. That the maximum revenue 
duty should be imposed on luxuries. 

Fifth. That all minimums and all spe- 
cific duties should be abolished and ad 
valorem duties substituted in their place, 
care being taken to guard against frau- 
dulent invoices and undervaluation, and 
to assess the duty upon the actual market 
value. 

Sixth. That the duty should be so im- 
posed as to operate as equally as possible 
throughout the Union, discriminating 
neither for nor against any class or sec- 
tion. 

I agree to each and all of these prin- 
ciples; and the sixth is a principle which 
I think it a vital one in the framing and 
imposition of a Tariff. 

The Enforcement of the Doctrine Depends 
Upon Circumstances. 

Mr. ALDRICH. As I now understand 
the Senator, Mr. Walker's report and 
Tariff are conclusive upon Democrats 
when it happens to meet their views at 
the present moment, but If it happens to 
be contrary to their views at the present 
moment it is obsolete. 

Mr. TALIAFERRO. Mr. President, a 
part of this long-staple cotton is grown 
in Florida, and the people there, I should 
like to say for the benefit of the Senator 
from Rhode Island, make no concealment 
of the fact that they would like to have 
some Protection on their cotton. They 
contend and they believe that the Egyp- 
tian cotton comes in competition with 
their cotton. They believe that the two 
are mixed, and that in some instances 
the Egyptian cotton is substituted for 
the long-staple product of this country. 

A Democratic Legislature As iced for Pro- 
tection. 

Sometime ago the legislature of Florida 
passed a memorial requesting the repre- 
sentatives from that State to support a 
provision for a duty on long-staple cot- 
ton. That legislature made no hesita- 
tion in asking for the duty, Protective or 
otherwise, and the people make no con- 
cealment of the fact that they are suffer- 



398 



FLETCHER. CULBERSON. ALDRICH. LODGE. TILLMAN. 



ing from foreign competition. We are 
not here asking that a prohibitive duty 
be written in the bill. We ask that the 
amount which has been suggested by 
the Senator from Georgia, I think it was 
5 cents a pound originally, be placed on 
Egyptian cotton. 

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, there 
can be no question, I think, that Egyp- 
tion cotton does come into competition 
with the long-staple or sea-island cotton 
grown in South Carolina, Florida, and 
Georgia. If it does not come in direct 
competition, it certainly displaces in the 
mills of this country the long-staple or 
sea-island cotton. The people who are 
interested and those engaged in the in- 
dustry are thoroughly convinced there 
is direct competition with Egyptian cot- 
ton. 

Labor in Egypt costs from 10 to 20 
cents a day, while in this country, as 
is well known, it costs from a dollar to 
a dollar and a half a day. The impor- 
tations will increase, unquestionably, and 
you will not stop a single pound even if 
you place this duty at from 5 to 8 cents 
a pound instead of at 4 cents, as contem- 
plated by this amendment. 

To Put Cotton Ties on the Free List. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I offer an amend- 
ment which was proposed May 3, 1909, 
as paragraph 583 1^ on the free list. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sec- 
retary will read the amendment. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is to put cotton 
ties on the free list. 

The SECRETARY. It is proposed to 
insert the following paragraph: 

583 1^. Hoop or band iron, or hoop or 
band steel, cut to lengths, or wholly or 
partly manufactured into hoops or ties, 
coated or not coated with paint or any 
other preparation, with or without 
buckles or fastenings, for baling cotton 
or any other commodity. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, there 
is no more reason why cotton ties should 
be put upon the free list than that steel 
rails should be. The present duty on ore 
itself is half a cent a pound. It is re- 
duced by this bill to three-tenths of a 
cent a pound, or $6 a ton. With the un- 
rivaled iron resources of Virginia. Ten- 
nessee, Alabama, and Georgia, with their 
ore deposits and opportunities to manu- 
facture ties, every Senator from the South 
ought to vote against this proposition. 
There is no reason for it whatever. The 
duty on pig iron is $2.50 a ton and on 



cotton ties only $6 a ton. They ought 
to be made in the South, and the South 
ought to be opposed to any proposition 
of this kind to have them imported from 
a foreign country. 

Mr. LODGE. I only want to say that 
I have not the slightest doubt that if 
bagging and ties were admitted free the 
New England mills would cease to pay 
for them; but, Mr. President, I see no 
reason why industries, such as the man- 
ufacture of bagging and ties, fairly built 
up under the system of Tariff that we 
have had for many years, are not en- 
titled to a reasonable Protection like any 
other industry in this country. 



A Southern Democrat and Free- 
Trader Pleads for Protection for 
South Carolina Tea. 

From the Congressional Record of June 28, 
1909. 

BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN, of South 
Carolina. Now I ask the Senator and 
his brethren on the other side of the 
Chamber to give me a duty on tea to 
help Protect an American industry which 
is struggling and is in its infancy; but it 
is a lusty little baby and can cry; and if 
the Senator thinks we do not produce 
tea, I will give him some nice tea to- 
morrow from South Carolina that will 
cool his "inwards" and will make him 
feel so good that I think he will agree 
to give us this duty. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ALDRICH. Was it produced in 
South Carolina or in a laboratory? 

Mr. TILLMAN. It was produced on a 
farm in South Carolina, and I have just 
had a communication from Doctor True, 
the expert of the Bureau of Plant In- 
dustry of the Agricultural Department, 
in charge of the tea experiments. The 
product varies as the bushes grow older; 
but it has increased. I will ask to have 
the communication printed in the Record, 
if there is no objection. 

There Is no more doubt that we pro- 
duce tea in South Carolina, and can pro- 
duce it, than that you produce cotton 
cloth in Rhode Island or that you produce 
corn in Rhode Island. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator is ad- 
dressing me upon the subject of a tax on 
tea. I say to him that I would not ob- 
ject especially to a tax on tea under some 
circumstances. If we were not getting 
sufficient revenue from other things, and 



TILLMAN. ALDRICH. SMITH. HEYBURN. 



399 



purely as a revenue duty, I would not ob- 
ject to a tax on tea. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I want a Protective 
Tariff on it. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I do not believe the 
Senator can ask for that with any sort 
of reasoning or assurance. 

Has Voted for Protection for Rice and 
Ot/ier Soutiiern Products. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I have in the past 
voted for a duty on rice and on some of 
our other products. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Has the State of South 
Carolina ever offered a bounty to en- 
courage the tea industry? 

Mr. TILLMAN. South Carolina does 
not believe in bounties. 

Mr. ALDRICH. They believe in boun- 
ties if the United States will pay them? 

Mr. TILLMAN. No; I would not vote 
for a bounty on tea now; it is against my 
principles. I do not believe in the Gov- 
ernment taxing the people to give any- 
body a bounty, but if you give indirect 
help — I mean if you levy a revenue duty 
which gives incidental Protection — that is 
good Democracy; and if it is not good 
enough for my friends over here, it is 
good enough for me. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I am very much afraid 
that there will be no Democratic doctrine 
that will be adhered to by everybody 
on the other side. 

Mr. TILLMAN. The Senator may take 
care of the doctrine of his own party. 
There is a greater split on his side than 
there is on this. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Between the Senator 
from Maryland [Mr. Rayner], who is now 
listening to me, the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Tillman], and the Senator 
from Georgia [Mr. Bacon], they are all 
at sea as to what are the real doctrines 
and principles of the Democratic party. 

Two Wei I -Defined Republican Factions. 

Mr. TILLMAN. And as to the Repub- 
lican party, it is too much to expect any 
of us to know what the Republican party 
stands for. There are two well-defined 
Republican factions in this Senate. 

Mr. ALDRICH. There is more cohesion 
over here in principles, if there is some 
difference when it comes to votes, than 
there is on the other side. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. From what 
I know of the tea industry, I should not 
hesitate one moment to vote to put a 
bounty on the production of tea. I am a 



little surprised that the State of South 
Carolina has not undertaken it. In the 
early stages of the beet-sugar industry 
we did exactly that in the State of 
Michigan, and the Government saw fit 
to do it later on, with no better prospects 
of success than are disclosed by the Sen- 
ator from South Carolina to-day. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I do not think the 
Senator would get from the taxpayers 
of South Carolina much support for the 
proposition to tax them on their other 
products — cotton, corn, and so forth, 
which are largely the source of their in- 
come — in order to try to grow something 
else. They would say, "If it can not be 
grown on its own hook, we can not af- 
ford to encourage it in that way." 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. That would 
not be out of harmony with the historical 
analogy, however. We have put a Tariff 
on a great many things the South form- 
erly thought we could not produce; yet 
we have demonstrated our ability to pro- 
duce them, and have become independent 
of foreign countries in regard to them. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I am asking for a 
Tariff; I am not asking for a bounty. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. I wish we 
could monopolize the American market 
with our tea. 

Mr. TILLMAN. We certainly can do 
it if you will give us the same encourage- 
ment that you are giving wheat. 

An Enterprise that Should Be Encour- 
aged. 

Mr. HEYBURN. If the Senator does 
not object to my making at this time 
such suggestions as I desire to make, I 
will say that for a number of years I 
have taken considerable interest in this 
question. For six or seven years we have 
Bsed nothing but South Carolina tea; and 
we use it because of its quality. If any- 
one will open a package of South Caro- 
lina tea and open a package of the best 
imported tea to be had in the market 
and compare them, he will not hesitate a 
moment to declare in favor of the South 
Carolina tea. It is free from the broken 
leaves and dusty conditions that even 
the best other tea has; and it has the 
very best flavor of any tea you can get 
in the market. 

I know of men — it is not necessary to 
mention their names; they are northern 
men — who have expended from $75,000 to 
$100,000 in this proposition of raising tea 
In South Carolina; and I have from them 
their report on the possibilities of raising 



400 



HEYBURN. CARTER. SCOTT. TILLMAN. SMITH. 



tea in the South. They tell me that after 
a most careful and scientific investigation 
they find that the tea belt that is just as 
good as that which has been developed 
in South Carolina extends clear to the 
Mississippi River, and that it can be 
extended over a vast amount of country. 
They have backed their judgment and 
their investigation with cash, and they 
stand ready to do so further. They think 
there should be a duty on tea. And if 
I vote for the amendment of the Senator 
from South Carolina, it will be because 
I believe that an enterprise of such im- 
portance to all of the people should be 
encouraged and built up; and I will do 
it on the ground of the principles of the 
Protective Tariff. 

Protectionists Sfiou/d Discriminate in Its 
Favor. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, I think 
it is clear from the history of the tea 
trade, the history of our tea duties, and 
the testimony of those best able to un- 
derstand the facts from experience, that 
this country pays more for tea than any 
other tea-using country; and, moreover, 
that this country gets the poorest tea 
shipped into any market in the world. If 
it is possible for us not only to improve 
the quality of tea in the market, but like- 
wise to encourage the production of tea 
at home, and that without the addition 
of a farthing to the cost to the consumer 
I think a long-continued debate on the 
question should not be considered neces- 
sary. Our friends on the other side of 
the Chamber may support this as a rev- 
enue Tariff, or a Tariff for revenue only. 
On this side I know that as an industry, 
the success of which in the United States 
has been demonstrated on a small scale, 
we, as Protectionists, are called upon to 
discriminate in its favor in order to 
give the American market to the Ameri- 
can tea grower, just as we gave the 
American market to the manufacturers 
of tin plate in the United States. 

Mr. SCOTT. I wish to ask the Senator 
from South Carolina if he really thinks 
if we put this duty of 10 cents a pound 
on tea, it will encourage the growing 
of tea in the United States to any sus- 
ceptible extent? Is it a kind of industry 
that we can build up by putting a duty 
on tea, in the opinion of the Senator from 
South Carolina? 

Mr. TILLMAN. INIr. President, I want 
to say on my word of honor as a man 



that from my investigation we have In 
the South, and especially in South Caro- 
lina, the possibility of not only supplying 
all the tea which we need in America, but 
of becoming an exporter of tea. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I can not conceive of a better case 
than that made by the Senator from 
South Carolina. It is strictly within 
every rule of Protection. If we can ab- 
solve our people from the necessity of 
sending abroad millions of dollars to pay 
for foreign tea, and can retain that money 
in the circulating medium of our country 
for the benefit of our own people, I do 
not understand why we should not be 
willing to do it. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, intend- 
ing, as I do, to support the amendment 
of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Tillman], I elect to consume a few mo- 
ments in stating the reasons why I In- 
tend to cast that vote. 

First, 

It Is a Genuine Pleasure to Welcome the 
Senator from Soutii Carolina into Ways 
Which Are Right Politically and Right 
Economically. 

He, too, gives additional evidence of 
the approach of that day when the great 
western country and the southern coun- 
try will vmite in supporting the Protec- 
tive Tariff, which is destined to result 
in the erection of factories and centers 
of industrial activity all over the great 
region south of the Ohio and Potomac 
and west of the Mississippi. 

Much has been done in this direction 
heretofore, but more will be done here- 
after; and I am much gratified to observe 
that the Senators from the South have 
given evidence of their capacity to appre- 
ciate the beneficial effect of that p.olicy, 
notwithstanding the ancient prejudice 
which has existed against it. 

To my mind, as a Protectionist, no 
amendment has been presented in the 
course of this Tariff discussion more 
meritorious or desirable than the amend- 
ment presented by the Senator from 
South Carolina. Many years ago not an 
orange was produced in the United 
States; and grape fruit, now an article 
of commerce of very great value and a 
joy and luxury on every table where it 
can be delivered, was not known. The 
United Stales gave a bounty in lands 
within the State of Florida to encourage 
the growth of tropical fruits in that por- 



CARTER. BRADLEY. SMITH. 



401 



tion of the country. An enthusiast, who^ 
had been in the consular service in Cen- V^ 
tral America, secured the passage of that 
law, or was instrumental in presenting 
the facts which induced its passage. He 
died without realizing the dreams which 
he had dreamed; and yet that old land 
grant, which gave a bounty in land to 
induce the planting of tropical fruits in 
the Gulf States, particularly in Florida, 
finally led to the immense output of 
tropical fruits now grown within the lim- 
its of the United States— in California, 
the Gulf States, and Florida in partic- 
ular. 

Development of Beet Sugar and Tin Plate 
Under Protection. 

Not long ago different States of the 
Union gave a bounty on sugar beets. The 
States which provided that bounty were 
regarded at the time as engaged in a 
vicious practice, and many believed they 
were indulging in an Utopian dream; but 
in due time the bounty on sugar, and 
subsequently the duty which encouraged 
the growth of sugar beets, resulted in 
opening up the way for the production 
by the people of the United States in 
their own fields of the great volume of 
the sugar required for home consump- 
tion. 

I remember not many years ago, wnen 
the McKinley bill was passed, it was 
believed that the tin-plate duty would 
never produce any beneficial result. At 
the time we levied a duty on tin plate 
we were producing little or none of that 
article; and I think we lost a general 
election upon the claim that we were 
putting a duty upon tin plate, without 
any prospect whatever of building up 
an American industry or benefiting any 
American citizen; but we have lived to 
see the time — and within a few years — 
when no one questions the wisdom of 
the Committee on Ways and Means and 
of the Congress in imposing that duty. 

Both for Revenue and for Protection To 
an Infant American Industry. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, it 
seems to me there should be no difficulty 
in any Senator arriving at a vote on the 
amendment of the Senator from South 
Carolina. As I understand the title of 
the bill now before the Senate, it is "An 
act to provide revenue, equalize duties, 
and encourage the industries of the 
United States, and for other purposes." 



^This amendment, in the first place, Is a 
^revenue producer and in full line with 
the title of the bill. 

In the second place it is a Protection 
to an American Industry, and an infant 
Industry at that. It seems to me that our 
Democratic brethren should have no hesi- 
tation in arriving at their conclusion, If 
they see fit, with a view to producing 
revenue, and it seems to me my Repub- 
lican brethren should have no difficulty in 
arriving at a conclusion on the ground 
that we are Protecting an American In- 
dustry. 

So far as I am concerned, I shall vote 
for this amendment upon the theory of 
Protection. The Protection of industries 
In the West, in the East, and all through 
this country is Republican doctrine, and 
I want to see this doctrine extended to 
the people of the South, I want to see 
the time come when we will not be de- 
pendent upon foreign nations for the tea 
we buy, or rather the filth we buy, at 
their own prices, and I hope that the Re- 
publicans in the Senate will see fit, one 
and all, to cast their votes In favor 
of this amendment; and if our Democratic 
brethren want to call it something else, 
let them call it something else, but let 
us pass this amendment substantially 
with unanimity. 

I want to see it passed, because I be- 
lieve it is right, and it would be a great 
pleasure to me to cast my vote in favor 
of a measure which is suggested by my 
distinguished friend the Senator frorn 
the State of South Carolina. 



Why the Domestic Production of Tea 
Should Be Stimulated by a Pro- 
tective Tariff. 

From the Congressional Record of June 29, 
1909. 
WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, of Michi- 
gan. The answer to the Senator from 
Indiana [Mr. Shively], that our Tariff 
upon tin plate did not stimulate the do- 
mestic industry, can best be made by 
quoting the figures. In 1899, before we 
put on the Tariff, we exported 205,000 
pounds of tin plate; and in 1907, after 
the duty had been on for a few years, we 
exported 19,804,000 pounds of tin plate, 
thus demonstrating that we not only 
supplied our domestic demand, but that 
we had an excess of tin plate for ex- 
portation of over 19,000,000 pounds, which 



402 



SMITH. ALDRICH. CLAY. 



found its way back to Europe, with the 
stamp of the American laboring man upon 
it. That is a sufficient answer as to the 
effect of our duty upon tin plate. 

I wish to put into the Record, so that 
I may not be misunderstood, the rea»- 
sons why I would favor such a duty upon 
tea as would stimulate the domestic pro- 
duction. In the first place, the special 
agent of the United States Department 
of Agriculture says t\iat — 

It has been abundantly established 
that, at least for certain sections of the 
United States, American-grown tea can 
holds its own against the imported ar- 
ticle. 

A widespread American tea industry 
awaits the same advantages that are en- 
joyed by the sugar, tobacco, and other 
Protected crops of this country, whether 
in the form of a bounty on the domestic 
article or a duty on foreign teas, such as 
is levied on tea in almost every civilized 
nation. 

He further says that tea is a necessity 
to many people, and that it is wise to 
cultivate the domestic supply, in order 
that our people may never be embar- 
rassed in their supply, as they were in 
the supply of coffee but a few years ago 
when insects destroyed the plant. 

Mr. President, it costs 12 cents a pound 
to produce tea in Ceylon or in the East. 
The American consumer pays from 60 
cents to a dollar a pound for it. Some- 
body gets that tremendous profit between 
the grower of tea and the consumer; and 
all must admit that millions of dollars 
of American money go out of our country 
every year to pay for tea. 

As a Consistent Protectionist. 

Having confidence in the ability of our 
country and the character of our soil to 
produce almost anything that the Ameri- 
can people need, I propose by my vote to 
extend the beneficent effects of our pol- 
icy to the domestic tea industry. 

If the same pessimistic and doubtful 
attitude of the opponents of this proposi- 
tion had been applied to the beet-sugar 
Industry, there would not have been an 
acre of sugar beets now produced in 
America. If the same doubtful attitude 
had been assumed toward tin jilate, we 
would not now be exporting millions of 
pounds of tin plates and giving to the 
American consumer that necessary article 
cheaper than he ever bought it before 
the duty was placed upon it under the 
McKlnley law. 

The Japanese people consider the 
American market so essential that they 



subsidize ships to handle tea exclusively 
between Japan and the United States. 

England Lays a Heavy Tariff on Tea. 

A few moments ago we were talking 
of the duty upon tea in England. Every 
great country in the world imposes a duty . 
upon tea. England has a duty upon tea; " 
and all those who have been talking 
about fashioning our domestic policy after 
the policy of England had better read 
the history of England a little more care- 
fully. Some would have us abandon our 
Protective principle and impose a Tariff 
for revenue such as England imposes, in 
the face of the fact that the English peo- 
ple pay more per capita in import duties 
than the American people pay. While 
our import duties average about four 
dollars and a half per capita, the import 
duties of England average over $5 per 
capita, thus showing that to change our 
policy and adopt theirs would impose 
greater burdens upon the American peo- 
ple than they are called upon to bear to- 
day. 



"I Shall Vote for a Corporation Tax 
as a Means to Defeat the Income 
Tax." 

From the Congressional Record of June zg, 
jgog. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. What I am trying to And out 
from the Senator from Georgia is whether 
he would vote for an income tax if he 
thought it would not be possible to re- 
vise this Protective Tariff according to 
his ideas, downward. 

Mr. CLAY. I will vote for an income 
tax, because I believe it to be right, and 
I would continue to battle before the 
country to induce the country to send 
Representatives to Congress who would 
enact it into a law and who would re- 
duce the Tariff duties on the necessities 
of life in proportion to the amount raised 
by an income tax. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I shall vote for a cor- 
poration tax as a means to defeat the 
income tax. 

Mr. CLAY. I think that is an honest 
statement. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I will be perfectly 
frank with the Senate In that respect. 
I shall vote for it for another reason. 
The statement which I made shows a de- 
ficit for this year and next year. This 
your I estimated $69,000,000. It will be 



ALDRICH. TILLMAN. DIXON. SCOTT. 



403 



$60,000,000. And next year I estimate a 
deficit of $45,000,000. I am willing that 
that deficit shall be taken care of by a 
corpoi-ation tax. That corporation tax, 
however, at the end of two years, if my 
estimate should be correct, should be 
reduced to a nominal amount or repealed. 
It can be reduced to a nominal amount, 
and the features of the corporation tax 
that commend it to many Senators and 
a great many other people is that the 
corporation tax, if it is adopted, will cer- 
tainly be very largely reduced, if not re- 
pealed, at the end of two years. 

So I am willing to accept a proposition 
of this kind for the purpose of avoiding 
what, to my mind, is a great evil and 
the imposition of a tax in time of peace 
when there is no emergency. 

A Tax Which Is Sure in the End to De- 
stroy the Protective System. 

I have been perfectly frank with the 
Senator in stating my own views on the 
subject. 

The Senator from Texas says he does 
not know whether the President of the 
United States succeeded in ' persuading 
me to support this amendment or 
whether I succeeded in persuading him. 
I will say to the Senator from Texas 
that this proposition of the President of 
the United States was made to the House 
Committee on Ways and Means long be- 
fore I considered the subject at all, and 
I am here as a Republican to support 
the President and the Republican ad- 
ministration as far as I can consistently 
with my views of my duty to the coun- 
try and my position as a Senator. I 
shall vote for this proposition for the 
very purposes I have named, and among 
them the fact that it Is a Republican 
proposition and has the support of the 
President of the United States is not the 
least controlling. 

P/ea for the Poor Little Tea Baby. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I am not going to 
make any speech, but I am going to state 
a fact which it seems to me has escaped 
the minds of Senators. We have gone 
beyond the understanding that we were 
not to take up the income tax until the 
dutiable schedules are completed. The 
Senator from Rhode Island this morning 
served notice that as soon as the amend- 
ment on tea which I offered is disposed 
of he would then move to lay on the table 
any amendment proposed to the schedules 
of the bill. Now, my poor little tea baby 



is lying in the pine woods crying for 
pap or something of that sort, asking for 
votes which will give us $9,000,000 of 
revenue and satisfy the Democrats and 
give us $1,200 of Protection and satisfy 
the Republicans, and Senators jvmip up 
this income tax, corporation tax, sub- 
terfuge, humbug, whatever it may be, 
and my poor little infant goes on suffer- 
ing. Let «s get back to the tea. 



Has Almost Demonstrated that the 
Consumer Does Not Pay the Tariff 
Duty. 

From the Congressional Record of June 29, 
1909. 

JOSEPH M. DIXON, of Montana. Mr. 
President, I am glad that the Senator 
from South Carolina brought up the ques- 
tion of pineapples. I voted for the pine- 
apple duty of, as I understood it, about 
25 to 30 per cent, because at this time 
we do produce about one-third of the 
pineapples consumed in this country; but 
I think it is carrying Protection to the 
furthest extreme for the people of this 
country to deliberately add $10,000,000 a 
year to the cost of tea for the sake of 
protecting 12,000 pounds grown in one 
State. 

Mr. SCOTT. I believe that the ma- 
jority, speaking of this tea question, if 
they are Protectionists, have made a mis- 
take. My theory as a Protectionist Is, 
and always has been, that the Protection 
of the home industry always lowers the 
price of the article. I have no apology 
to make, though the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Tillman] said a while ago 
that the majority would have to apologize 
for some of their votes. I shall not, for 
I have voted consistently on this Tariff 
bill from the standpoint of a Protection- 
ist. If we can produce tea in this coun- 
try, it will only be a short time before 
this production will bring the price down. 
This has been proved in the case of every 
article Protected, manufactured or agri- 
cultural, in the history of Protective 
Tariffs. That is the kind of a Protection- 
ist I am. 

Mr. DIXON. And that Is the kind of d 
Protectionist I am; but when you start 
with only 12,000 pounds to supply an im- 
portation of 90,000,000 pounds, when we 
know it will take years to grow the tea 
plant, it is a different proposition. If 
it takes five years, the people will pay 
$50,000,000 for the sake of establishing 



404 



SCOTT. DIXON. PERKINS. TILLMAN. BOURNE. 



the Industry; and If it takes ten years, 
they will pay over $100,000,000, 

Mr. SCOTT. If this proposed duty be 
Imposed, the people will not pay a cent 
more for tea than they are paying to-day. 
^he Senator from South Carolina stated 
the case very properly when he said that 
the history of the price of tea substan- 
tiated the assertion that when the duty 
went on or went off it did not change 
the price of tea to the consumer. 

Mr. DIXON. I want to confess that the 
Senator from South Carolina has almost 
demonstrated to me that the consumer 
does not pay the Tariff duty. 

How Raisin Production Was Stimulated 
by Protection. 

Mr. PERKINS. I want to give my 
friend from Montana an object lesson 
which will enable him to ease his con- 
science and vote for the proposed amend- 
ment of the Senator from South Caro- 
lina. Twelve years ago layer raisins and 
Zante currants, but raisins in particular, 
were worth from 10 to 15 cents a pound. 
We succeeded in getting a duty of 6 
cents a pound placed upon them under 
what is known as the "Dingley law." We 
were then producing no raisins, compara- 
tively speaking, in the United States. 
To-day raisins are selling for 3 and Zy^ 
cents a pound in California, and we are 
producing enough layer raisins of the 
best quality to supply every person in the 
United States with them. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is good Republican 
doctrine. 

Mr. DIXON. The Senator from Cali- 
fornia has undoubtedly convinced my 
friend from West Virginia of the potency 
of his argument. 

Mr. PERKINS. It is unanswerable, it 
seems to me. 

Ought to Get the Vote of Every Protec- 
tionist. 

Mr. DIXON. The Senator from South 
Carolina frankly says that he wants 10 
cents a pound, as a matter of Protection, 
to develop the tea industry in the South. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I i»ay "Protection" on 
the other side, but I want $9,000,000 for 
revenue on this side. [Laughter.] This 
Is the only proposition that has come in 
here that catches you all; and it is only 
by all sorts of quibbling and inconsequen- 
tial reasoning that you can vote against 
this proposition. I ought to get the vote 
Qt every solitary Republican Protectionist 



In this Chamber, and I ought to get the 
vote of every solitary Democrat for reve- 
nue in this Chamber. 

Mr. JONES. As I understand, the Sen- 
ator from South Carolina is urging the 
Republicans to vote for his amendment 
on the ground of Protection. I wonder 
whether or not the Senator Indorsed the 
Democratic platform of a few years ago, 
which denounced Protection as robbery, 
and whether the Senator is trying to 
have the Republicans here commit rob- 
bery. 

Mr. DIXON. Would it hurt the feel- 
ings of the Senator from South Carolina, 
in spite of his protest against the doc- 
trine of paying a bounty, if, notwith- 
standing his own opposition in the mat- 
ter, the Senate deliberately ran over the 
Senator, figuratively speaking, and put 
10 cents a pound bounty on tea? 

Mr. TILLMAN. I am not here to com- 
plain of what the Senate does. If the 
Senate does not give me anything, I 
shall not worry. I believe I have pre- 
sented a case here which is entitled to 
support in two particulars. It demands 
that every Protectionist in this Chamber 
shall support this duty, and it demands 
that every Tariff-for-revenue Democrat 
in this Chamber shall vote for this duty, 
knowing that we have a deficit. 



It Is Not the Protective Tariff that 
Gives the Trusts Their Power. 

From the Congressional Record of July i, 
1909. 

JONATHAN BOURNE, JR., of Oregon. 
Personally, I attach but little importance 
to the schedules that may be enacted by 
Congress in this Tariff bill. To my mind 
there is but one fundamental question 
presented by the Tariff bill, namely, 
whether we stand for Protection or Free- 
Trade. As I understand, the chief criti- 
cism of the high-Protection opponents is 
based upon the claim that Protection 
fosters monopoly. What is monopoly? 
It is exclusive possession or direct con- 
trol of supply and the resultant power to 
fix prices. But how about the demand? 
The demand is regulated by the neces- 
sity for and desirability of the use of the 
articles. 

In my opinion it is impossible by legis- 
lation to create a monopoly on any manu- 
factured product except where protected 
by patent, secret process, or absolute 
control of the raw material. A tern- 



BOURNE. ROOT. 



405 



porary monopoly immediately incident to 
legislation. If productive of large profits, 
would be dissipated in a comparatively 
short time by domestic competition. The 
pending Tariff bill, to my mind, in no 
case can or does create by legislation 
absolute control of raw material, and 
therefore no matter what rate of duty 
might be put on a manufactured product 
there is no possibility of a monopoly being 
created and fostered therebj'. This state- 
ment will be very generally disputed, but 
any man who will study the conditions 
and circumstances which enable any con- 
cern to maintain a monopoly will discover 
that the ownership of patents, possession 
of secret processes, or control of i-aw 
material, and not the Protective Tariff, 
gives the trust Its power. The only ex- 
ception to this rule has been found in 
the case of corporations which violate 
law by securing secret rebates or enjoy- 
ment of special privileges. Hence, the 
only two questions to be considered in 
Tariff legislation are those of revenue 
and adequate protection to home indus- 
tries. 

Because of these views and because I 
am a Protectionist in my attitude toward 
home labor and industries, believing that 
Protection means higher wages, that 
higher wages mean better citizenship, and 
because, Mr. President, I have felt that 
the Committee on Finance had better 
opportunities for collating data, far 
greater experience as to how the Tariff 
can best be applied to produce the great- 
est good for the greatest number, and I 
myself having neither the experience, in- 
formation, nor means of obtaining data, 
I have voted almost without exception 
in support of the committee's recommen- 
dations. The Protective principle is un- 
doubtedly growing in this country, and 
the national Republican nominees re- 
ceived many thousands of Democratic 
votes from those who believe that Pro- 
tection to home industries is desirable 
and beneficial to the country. 



Is the Income Tax to Create a Sub- 
stitute for the Protective Tariff? 

From the Congressional Record of July i, 
1909. 
ELmU ROOT, of New York. Mr. 
President, I stated some objections to the 
general income-tax provision. Let me 
state another objection. What is the 
purpose of this legislation? Is it to 



create a substitute for the Protective 
Tariff? My friend from Texas [Mr. 
Bailey], whose mind always works as 
true as a Corliss engine, touched the 
very pith of that question when he was 
speaking about the time when this in- 
come-tax amendment should be voted 
upon with reference to the schedules. 
The Senator from Texas observed on a 
number of occasions that, in his opinion, 
the first thing that we ought to do was to 
vote on the income tax, while the Senator 
from Rhode Island insisted that the firSt 
thing we ought to do was to pass on the 
schedules. In that difference lies the 
whole theory and practice. If the design 
of this amendment is to create a sub- 
stitute for the Protective Tariff, as Great 
Britain adopted an income tax in 1842 
as a substitute for the Protective Tariff 
— following her adoption by putting over 
700 articles on the free list — then the 
Senator from Texas is right; then we 
should have voted upon the income-tax 
amendment at the beginning; and when 
we had determined upon that, we should 
then have made an estimate of the 
amount of revenue which it would raise, 
and we should have made up the differ- 
ence by a customs tariff. 

If, on the other hand, we are going to 
maintain our Protective Tariff and are 
going to adopt some supplemental pro- 
vision to make up the balance that is 
needed, the deficiency of revenue coming 
from the application of the Protective 
Tariff and our internal-revenue laws, 
then the course which we have followed 
in deferring the vote upon the income 
tax until the schedules are voted upon, 
is the right course. Our duty now is to 
make an estimate, as well as we can, of 
what revenue will be produced by the 
schedules as we have agreed upon them, 
and then see what deficiency there is to 
be made up and determine how we shall 
make it up. 

The Bill Made Up with a Primary View 
to Protection. 

Mr. President, I have observed in the 
consideration of these schedules, no mat- 
ter how strong and sincere have been the 
efforts of the Members of the Senate to 
consider first the revenue question, 
nevertheless, sooner or later, we have all 
come to a point where, about something 
or other, we have considered first Pro- 
tection. This bill has been made up, sir, 
with a primary view to the Protection 
of the articles in the schedules. You can 



406 



ROOT. SHIVELY. ALDRICH. WARREN. 



not make it up on any other principle 
unless you abandon and entirely aban- 
don, the doctrine of Protection; you can 
not determine the amount of duty to be 
imposed upon steel rails, upon lemons, 
upon iron ore, upon lumber, upon barley, 
upon any of these products of our coun- 
try under two rules of action. 

You have got to choose one and aban- 
don the other. If you fix the duty upon 
steel rails, upon barley, upon lemons, 
upon iron ore, with reference to Protec- 
tion, then you can not fix it with refer- 
ence to yielding a supplemental duty 
after you have made up so much income 
from an income tax. The two principles 
are mutually exclusive, and the wit of 
man will not avail to employ them both 
without one taking precedence and push- 
ing the other aside. 

What is our principle? Are we ready 
to give up the Protective principle? I 
think not. There is much controversy 
here as to the application of the prin- 
ciple; there has been a degree of feel- 
ing, in which I am happy to say I do not 
share, as to the application of the prin- 
ciple to detailed facts. There has been 
a degree of difficulty in ascertaining the 
facts, which I deplore, and which has 
caused me much dissatisfaction, but I 
have not seen any considerable differ- 
ence upon the proposition that this coun- 
try designs to continue its Protective 
policy. There are little variances here 
and there; but the Protective policy is 
to be continued. If it is to be con- 
tinued, you must put it foremost in your 
consideration of revenue. 



No Additional Duty Was Imposed in 
the Dingley Law for the Purpose of 
Trading. 

From the Congressional Record of July 3, 
1909. 
BENJAMIN F. SHIVELY, of Indiana. 
What I am discussing is this, if the 
Senator from Rhode Island pleases: I 
am showing what the difficulties are that 
will confront the President of the United 
States when he comes to the question of 
remitting these duties and putting in ef- 
fect the minimum rates. I was about to 
point to the fact that after the act of 
1897 went upon the statute books. Presi- 
dent McKinley, at first, and afterwards 
President Roosevelt, did negotiate a long 
series of treaties. Those treaties were 



sent to the Senate. They were referred 
to the proper committee. I am informed 
that the Senator from Rhode Island, and 
I do not know what other Senators, ap- 
peared before that committee and op- 
posed favorable report upon those trea- 
ties. This 20 per cent ad valorem was 
talked about and considered to be trading 
capital on which to negotiate treaties 
with foreign countries; yet, as a matter 
of fact, every treaty negotiated in pur- 
suance of the act of 1897, except that 
with Cuba, was relegated to the limbo 
of forgotten dreams by the Committee 
on Foreign Relations, and this on the ad- 
vice and counsel of the Senator from 
Rhode Island. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, the 
only thing I was finding fault about was 
the Senator's statement that an addi- 
tional duty of 20 per cent was imposed 
upon articles in the act of 1897 for the 
purpose of trading. That is not true. 
There was a provision in that act which 
allowed the President to negotiate trea- 
ties within certain limits, and certain 
treaties were negotiated, but were never 
acted upon by the Senate. 

The Non-Actiog of the Senate Was Wise. 

I think the Iction or nonaction of the 
Senate in that particular was extremely 
wise, and I think if the Senator from 
Indiana had then been a Member of this 
body, he would never have voted for 
the confirmation or ratification of any 
one of them. They were practically re- 
jected by unanimous consent. 

Mr. WARREN. Observing what the 
Senator has said as to those who op- 
posed those treaties, I have never dis- 
cussed any one of them with the Senator 
from Rhode Island; I never exchanged a 
word with him about them, but I have 
always been opposed to them. Whatever 
little influence I had with my fellow- 
members has been exerted against them. 
I know there were a great many others 
who felt the same way I did, who live far 
away from where the Senator from Rhode 
Island lives, who, for reasons of their 
own, which may or may not be the same, 
opposed those treaties. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, there 
is no reason for any secrecy, so far as 
my attitude toward those treaties is con- 
cerned. I was opposed to them, not be- 
cause the people of my section of the 
country, as the Senator suggested, had 
any interest in the matter. There was 
no article involved in the French treaty 



ALDRICH. DOLLIVER. 



407 



that affected the people of Rhode Island 
or the people in the section of the coun- 
try in which I live. 

Detrimental to the Interests of the Peo- 
ple. 

I opposed all those treaties because I 
believed that they should not be rati- 
fied, and there is no one act of my public 
service that has given me such satisfac- 
tion as that one act. I believe that the 
ratification of those treaties would have 
been detrimental to the interests of the 
people of the United States. I did not 
hesitate to say so then, and I do not 
hesitate to say so now. It is not neces- 
sary for me to go into the reasons for 
that, because the subject is not before 
the Senate nor pertinent to this inquiry. 

The French treaty was only one of a 
series of treaties which were negotiated. 
Those treaties, in my judgment, sacri- 
ficed every interest of the people of the 
United States, and they should not and 
would not, in my judgment, have been 
ratified by any patriotic Senator. 



Worried About the Activities of the 
American Protective Tariff League. 

From the Congressional Record of July 3, 
1909. 

JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER, of Iowa. 
I confess it is only in these later 
years that the extent of the task laid 
upon Congress in a general revision of 
the Tariff has dawned upon me. I con- 
fess, also, that a good many of the illu- 
sions of other years have faded away. 
I used to be able to get along with my 
own sense of ignorance by indulging the 
belief that there was somebody who 
actually understood, exactly as people 
sometimes treat their theological views, 
not on any well-defined comprehension of 
their own, but on their general confi.dence 
in the bishops and other clergy. 

But I confess that these comfortable 
illusions of faith in Congress have in 
these later years been rudely shattered; 
and I believe I share with everyone who 
does me the honor to listen to me to-day 
a dim conviction, at least, that in under- 
taking in the course of ninety days to 
deal with the entire business of this mar- 
ket place, the Congress of the United 
States has taken upon itself an impos- 
sible task. The result of all this is that 
our work is not well done. A moral 
fruitage of it is that nobody has any 



confidence in our work. We began this 
session with an exhortation from the offi- 
cial organ of the American Protective 
Tariff League to the manufacturing in- 
dustries of America to lock up their 
shops and let the office boy run the busi- 
ness while they repaired here to Wash- 
ington to superintend the business of re- 
vising the Tariff laws of the United 
States. And we end this work of Tariff 
revision by a second exhortation from 
the official organ of the American Pro- 
tective Tariff League warning the great 
business interests of the United States 
not to leave Washington, saying to them: 
"If you have been there once, go back 
again." There is no stage in our pro- 
ceedings in which these, who are in a 
special sense the beneficiaries of our 
labors, have any confidence in either our 
wisdom or our motives. 

And so we have an exhortation sent 
out now to the entire business, summon- 
ing parties in interest, to gather here and 
stay here until the last line of this 
Tariff revision is written and the last 
act of the Congress of the United States 
is performed. 



Clear Exposition of the Vital Need of 
a Maximum Tariff with Which to 
Prevent Unfair Treatment of Our 
Exports. 

From the Congressional Record of July 3, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. From a political standpoint, 
while I do not believe that it is neces- 
sary to be subservient to political plat- 
forms, the provisions of the Chicago 
platform upon this subject, so far as I 
know, met with no opposition from any 
quarter. But this question is much be- 
yond the question of party platforms. It 
is vastly greater than the question of 
parties. It is vastly greater, in my judg- 
ment, than any other provision in this 
bill. I would rather, so far as I am con- 
cerned, looking at it from the standpoint 
of the interests of the people of the 
United States, see every other feature of 
the bill wiped out rather than this one. 

Now, what are the conditions which 
have led up to this legislation, and what 
is attempted to be reached by it? Ger- 
many and France, and other countries, 
acting entirely within, the legitimate 
sphere of their own jurisdictions, have 



408 



ALDRICH. 



enacted maximum and minimum Tariffs. 
They have put provisions into the form 
of laws and regulations, sanitary ot 
otherwise, which, in the opinion of a, 
large part of the people of the United 
States engaged in productive enterprises, 
discriminate unfairly against the United 
States. 

Take the question of France, which Is 
entirely an open question and known, I 
assume, to every Member of the Senate. 
France has a maximum and minimum 
Tariff. The difference in the new Tariff 
which it is proposed to adopt is an aver- 
age of 50 per cent between the maxi- 
mum and minimum. France imposes her 
maximum Tariff upon the people of th@ 
United States, and she does not impose 
the provisions of her maximum Tariff 
upon any other commercial nation in the 
world, and we are powerless, unless this 
legislation is adopted, to prevent those 
discriminations. 

Fault Found with Impositions it) the 
Shape of Alleged Sanitary Precaution. 

The people who are producing meats 
and flour and all the agricultural prod- 
ucts of the great Middle West have been 
continuously finding fault about the im- 
positions which are made in Germany In 
the way of sanitary regulations or other- 
wise with reference to the products of the 
United States. What did Germany do? 
A year ago or more she passed a general 
Tariff which was to go into effect, as 
this does, in advance, with a provision 
in it that unless countries agreed to 
reciprocity provisions with her they 
should pay the rates imposed by her gen- 
eral Tariff. 

Mr. CULLOM. The highest rates? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes; tne maximum 
rates. 

I had read from the desk this morn- 
ing the provisions of legislation of 12 or 
15 other countries whicli are imposing 
maximum and minimum provisions in 
their Tariffs, and all with the possibility 
of discriminating against the United 
States. Are we going to sit here and 
not give our administration some power 
to resist these aggressions? We might 
as well wipe out the Tariff entirely upon 
all these articles if we are going to per- 
mit other countries, by "regulations," so 
called, or by discriminating legislation, 
to exclude our products from their ter- 
ritory. 



A Heeded P&wet h ihe Hands of Our 
Government. 

That Is precisely what some of these 
governments have done. We merely pro- 
pose to put it in the power of our ad- 
ministration to say to a foreign govern- 
ment, "You must either permit the prod- 
ucts of the United States to enter your 
country upon reasonable terms, without 
unjust discriminations and without pref- 
erential duties, or you will pay, when 
you send your products to the United 
States, the higher rate of duty." Most 
of the countries to whieh I have alluded 
give to their executive officers a right to 
put the Tariff up or down as they see fit 
and to guard and protect the interests of 
their own people. Are we willing to leave 
our administration absolutely helpless In 
a matter of this kind? 

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Shlve- 
ly] talks about the increase of duties 
Which are imposed by this bill. There Is 
not a man who listens to me who does 
not know that these additional duties will 
never be imposed unless the President Is 
satisfied that there is undue discrimina- 
tion against us. What will happen? As 
to nine-tenths of the foreign countries. 

This Maximum Duty Will Never Go Into 
Effect. 

Take Great Britain, for instance. The 
President does not need to go into an 
extended examination to ascertain that 
Great Britain makes no unjust discrim- 
inations against us. In the case of a 
large majority of the countries of the 
world, there are no unjust discriminations 
imposed against us. It is a well-known 
fact that as to most of these countries, 
the President will issue such proclama- 
tions granting minimum rates as a mere 
matter of course. But as to the nature 
and the extent of the discriminations 
which do exist, as in the case of France, 
for instance, they are apparent and patent 
to everybody. She compels us to pay 
the maximum duty on every article she 
sees fit, with certain exceptions which 
she has given, as in the case of cotton- 
seed oil and a few other products. The 
administration of France can put a pro- 
hibitory duty upon cotton-seed oil, and 
she can put that maximum prohibitory 
duty into effect to-morrow if she sees fit, 
and we are at present absolutely helpless 
^ to prevent it. 

But suppose our administration could 



ALblUCII. BACON. 



409 



say to France, "That is an undue dis- 
crimination against the interests of the 
United States, and you ought to give us 
the benefit of your minimum Tariff?" 
The President can say on the 31st of next 
March, if we pass this legislation, "Un- 
less you remove such discriminations, un- 
less j'ou give to the United States the 
benefit of your minimum Tariff, and treat 
us as fairly as you treat the people of 
other countries, I am powerless to pre- 
vent the general Tariff of the United 
States going into effect." The result 
M'ould be, as the Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. CuUom], well suggests, that the 
President never will have to permit the 
general Tariff to go into effect. Negotia- 
tions would be commenced at once with 
Germany and France, for they, after all, 
are the two countries most involved In 
this question of discriminations. They 
are the countries about which the most 
fault is found. 

Not Made for the Purpose of Increasing 
Protective Duties. 

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Curtis], 
whom I now see in his seat, presented to 
the Committee on Finance a long list of 
the discriminations against the meat 
products and various other products of 
the United States, and I hope that Sena- 
tor will have put into the Record the 
statement which he sent to the commit- 
tee, showing distinctly that, in the form 
of various regulations, there were exist- 
ing in some of these countries glaring 
discriminations against the United States. 

So this provision is not made for the 
purpose of increasing Protective duties at 
all, but it is made for the purpose of put- 
ting Into the hands of the administration 
means to protect and defend the agricul- 
tural and other interests of the United 
States. 

Of course there is no concealment here, 
and there is no concealment necessary 
as to the purpose of this legislation. It 
is not to raise duties; it is not a state- 
ment that we consider under ordinary 
circumstances the rate imposed by the 
maximum Tariff, or the general Tariff, or 
whatever you may call it, a proper rate 
to be imposed in the importation of mer- 
chandise. It is simply a method, and I 
suggest to the Senator from Georgia and 
to other Senators it is the only method 
by which we can protect ourselves against 
the aggressive and unjust discriminations 
of other countries against our products. 



I want to say further in that connec- 
tion that this aggressive discriminatory 
legislation on the part of the people of 
other countries has been progressive. 
Within the last two years legislation has 
been adopted and regulations have been 
put in force which 

Discriminate Purposely and Avowedly 
Against Our Country 

and against every country that does not 
enter into negotiations for the purpose 
of giving to the countrj^ imposing these 
regulations advantages through treaties 
or through legislation. The contest for 
the markets of the world was never so 
severe and was never carried on with 
such a determined purpose as is mani- 
fested by such laws and by such regula- 
\ tions to-day. The United States might 
I as well retire from any attempt to sell 
her products abroad — her meat products, 
I her agricultural products, and products 
of every kind — she might as well retire 
from any competition with the other coun- 
■^ tries of the world unless we are willing 
I to put into the hands of the Executive 
I similar powers to those which are granted 
freely to the government of every other 
country in the world to protect and safe- 
guard their own interests. It is for that 
purpose and along that line, and for no 
other purpose and along no other line 
that this legislation is suggested. 

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, what the 
Senator says is simply an argument in 
favor of the general maximum and mini- 
mum system, but it is not an argument 
in favor of the one system as against 
the other, because either will effect the 
purpose or meet the demands suggested 
by the argument of the Senator. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Every other commer- 
cial country in the world to-day has what 
is in effect a dual Tariff, a Tariff the 
benefits of which, in the shape of lower 
duties, are given to that country's friends, 
to the people who give to it reciprocal ad- 
vantages; and the higher rates are main- 
tained for the purpose of driving people, 
if you please — to use what might be called 
a harsh term — into proper relations with 
them. That is the sole purpose of this 
legislation. If Senators think, of course, 
that it is better to have the provision 
contained in the House bill than the 
proposition of the Senate committee, that 
is a matter of difference of judgment. 
Mr. BACON. Of course. 



410 



ALDRIOH. BACON. ROOT. 



Purely a Proposition to Force Fair Treat- 
ment. 

Mr. ALDRICH. But how any Senator 
can stand on this floor and refuse to give 
to the interests of the people of the 
United States the Protection which every 
other Government is giving to its people 
is beyond my comprehension. 

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, the Sena- 
tor and I do not differ on the general 
proposition that there ought to be a 
means by which there could be this Pro- 
tection against discrimination of our in- 
dustries by foreign nations, but we do 
differ very radically as to what is the 
appropriate method. The simple differ- 
ence, which I endeavored to suggest, 
might not of itself be controlling if it 
' were not for the already very high rate 
of this Tariff; but what I wish to sug- 
gest to the Senator is that when 25 per 
cent ad valorem is added to the rates 
carried in the schedules of this bill, it 
will be far away and beyond in height as 
a general Tariff law any Tariff that we 
have ever had since the foundation of the 
Government. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I hope the Senator will 
not get away from the fact that this is 
purely a proposition to force the people 
of the world to give fair treatment to our 
products. 

Mr. BACON. I understand that. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Let us see what other 
countries do. I do not know whether the 
Senator heard the statement that I had 
read this morning. There is not one for- 
eign country of importance that has not 
a greater difference in rates than is sug- 
gested by the proposition of the commit- 
tee. Many of them, as the Senator from 
Utah suggests, are from 50 to 100 per 
cent, or even higher than that, and some 
of them give their executive absolute 
power of prohibition. Of course we can 
not do that, and we are not trying to do 
that. The 25 per cent is simply a rate 
fixed. I do not care whether it is 25 per 
cent or 50 per cent. We made it 25 be- 
cause we thought that would be effective; 
and the question after all is, What rate 
will be effective? 

I assume — and I think I am safe in as- 
suming — that no one of the great com- 
mercial nations of the world can afford 
to pay us 25 per cent more duty than its 
neighbor. For instance, Germany 

Warmly in Favor of the Senate Plan. 
Mr. ROOT. Mr. President. I wish to 



suggest to the Senator from Georgia a 
consideration which has made me very 
warmly in favor of the committee's form 
of the maximum and minimum provision 
as compared with the House form. I 
agree with the view that some form of 
maximum and minimum Tariff is very im- 
portant. It is important for the Protec- 
tion of the cotton industry of the South, 
for the Protection of the beef-raising in- 
dustry of the West 

Mr. BACON. The cotton-seed industry, 
not the cotton industry itself. 

Mr. ROOT. It comes from cotton seed, 
does it not? The difference between the 
two is this: The House provision says 
that there shall be such and such a Tariff, 
and that if any country discriminates 
against the United States, the President 
may put on the maximum. The Senate 
committee's provision says that there 
shall be such a minimum and such a 
maximum Tariff, and that if any country 
does not discriminate against the United 
States, the President may take off the 
maximum. 

Mr. SHIVELY. That is not what this 
does. 

Mr. ROOT. That is the effect of It. 
The difference between those two provi- 
sions is the difference between proceeding 
by threat of injury in case of injustice, 
and proceeding by the offer of reward in 
case of justice. The Senator from 
Georgia knows, by reason of his long ex- 
perience with our foreign affairs, that 
nations are much more sensitive than in- 
dividual men. The national pride of every 
country forbids that its Government 
should ever yield to a threat. I appre- 
hend that if we put our maximum a.nd 
minimum provisions in the House form, 
so that the President is bound to say to 
this, that, and the other country, "You 
are discriminating against us, and unless 
you stop I will punish you," they will 
all be bound to say, "We can not stop 
upon any such intimidation as that." 

Better as a Practical Arrangement. 

On the other hand, if we here and 
now. dealing generally with all countries, 
put on by operation of law the penalty, 
making it the duty of the President to 
take it off except in the case of coun- 
tries which continue to do injustice to us, 
he will then say: "The law, which I am 
bound to obey, imposes this high and per- 
haps prohibitory Tariff upon you, and I 
am powerless, except that if you cease 
to discriminate against this country it 



ROOT. CUMMINS. ALDRICH. SHIVELY. 



411 



will be my greatest pleasure to remove 
it." As a practical arrangement, the 
Finance Committee's provision makes it 
possible and practical as a matter of in- 
ternational business to secure a cessa- 
tion of discriminatory provisions against 
the United States, while the House provi- 
sion would make it practically impossible 
to secure any benefits to the United 
States. 

People of the Western Country Deeply In- 
terested. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I am a thoroughgoing 
believer in the principle of the amendment 
offered by the committee. I am in favor 
of a maximum and a minimum Tariff. 
Indeed, I go one step further. If I cpuld 
have my way, we would have not a dual 
Tariff, but a triple Tariff. I believe in a 
Tariff for Protection, a Tariff for retalia- 
tion, and a Tariff for concession. But in- 
asmuch as I have no hope of securing a 
system of duties lower than those which 
are prescribed in the bill, I accept the 
maximum and minimum Tariff. 

The people of the western country are 
more deeply interested in this phase of 
the subject than in any other of the 
Tariffs. Our products are excluded at 
the present time from France entirely, 
and they are rapidly being excluded from 
Germany; and I suppose the misfortunes 
we have suffered there will speedily over- 
take us in otlier countries. Therefore I 
want a retaliatory duty to be imposed, 
and I am willing that it shall be imposed 
by the force of the law upon these coun- 
tries unless they will grant to us terms 
that are fair and reasonably reciprocal. 

Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from In- 
diana says that if we should put up the 
duties upon articles inr<)orted from France 
in this bill, we would punish the pur- 
chasers in the United States. It must be 
apparent to the Senator from Indiana 
that if we should cease to buy the manu- 
factured articles of France, we could buy 
the manufactured articles of Great Bri- 
tain, of Germany, of Switzerland, and of 
other competing nations. 

Mr. SHIVELY. It must also seem ap- 
parent 

Mr. ALDRICH. And if we should have, 
which I hope never will occur, a Tariff 
war between France and the United 
States, France would have to buy agri- 
cultural products of the United States 
or of some other country that now com- 
petes with us; but we can produce in the 
United States or we can buy from Ger- 



many or Great Britain or Switzerland all 
of the manufactured articles which we 
are now buying of France. 

A Democrat's Objection. 

Mr. SHIVELY. Mr. President, in re- 
ply to the very wise observation of the 
Senator from Rhode Island, permit me to 
say that it is equally apparent that when 
the additional 25 per cent duty is put up 
against France, the French may sell their 
goods, wares, and merchandise to the 
German, the Austrian, the Italian, and 
may buy their meats, breadstuffs, ma- 
chinery, and other necessaries from coun- 
tries other than the United States. So 
the point made by the Senator pricks both 
ways. The whole scheme of your Tariff 
is based on the theory that you intend 
in part to raise revenue. There can be 
no revenue without importations, and 
there can be no importations without pur- 
chasers of them. Of course the citizen 
may buy elsewhere or of some one else, 
but you lessen the number of sellers and 
narrow the choice of the American citi- 
zen in his purchase to his prejudice just 
to that extent. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I make the prediction 
that, if this provision becomes a law, as 
I hope and expect it will, we shall have 
no additional duties imposed upon France 
or upon Germany or upon any competing 
country for this reason: We are simply 
saying to those countries, "If you will 
treat American products fairly, we will 
treat French and German products 
fairly." I think that feeling of fairness 
and of reciprocal advantages growing out 
of trade will certainly prevent the imposi- 
tion of any additional duties at any time. 

Maximum Rates Sure to Be Arrested by 
Proclamation. 

Mr. SHIVELY. W^nat may be done will 
depend less on the law than on the De- 
partment of State. I can not be sure of 
haste in putting in force minimum rates 
in the presence of so much persistence in 
prescribing maximum rates. Does the 
Senator pretend that these maximum 
rates will be arrested by proclamation be- 
fore they go into effect March 31, 1910? 

Mr. ALDRICH. I have no question 
about it whatever. Negotiations will, of 
course, be at once entered into between 
the executive department and various 
other governments where discriminations 
are alleged to exist. With those coun- 
tries where po discriminations exist an4 



412 



ALDRICH. DICK. 



there is no allegation of discrimination, 
the minimum rates will prevail, and where 
there are alleged to be discriminations, 
negotiations will be at once entered into, 
and I predict that before long, probably- 
long before the 1st day of April next, 
proclamations will have been issued as to 
all those countries, and the whole thing 
will be settled. 



The Great Strength of American 
Building and Loan Associations. 

From the Congressional Record of July 6, 
1909. 

CHARLES DICK, of Ohio. It was re- 
cently said in the Senate Chamber that 
conditions had become such that only the 
thing visible to the assessor was taxed 
these days. The building associations are 
the direct means of creating visible 
things; they only loan on real estate, and 
mainly for the purpose of building homes. 

The number of associations in the coun- 
try to-day is 5,424, with assets of over 
$731,508,446 and a membership of over 
1,839,119, whose savings average about 
$400 each. 

Pennsylvania leads in associations, hav- 
ing 1,400 with assets of $146,915,600 and a 
membership of 374,950. Ohio follows next 



with more than 600, with assets of nearly 
$133,000,000 and a membership of more 
than 300.000. ' 

The local building and loan associations 
of the United States are in excellent con- 
dition. That they manifestly enjoy a full 
measure of public confidence as a means 
of caring for small savings, and that they 
are a popular American institution, is 
amply shown by the large gains in mem- 
bership and assets which they have again 
made during the past year. They have 
increased, approximately, $58,000,000 In 
assets in 1907, so that they now care for 
$731,500,000 of the people's savings. The 
members of these associations are largely 
wage-earners — persons with small in- 
comes — but they have been economical 
and thrifty and have, in the aggregate, 
accumulated a vast sum which has been 
mainly loaned to its members for the pur- 
pose of assisting them in securing their 
own homes. That these associations have 
been doing much good and that they have 
been extending the sphere of their use- 
fulness is apparent from the figures. 

The great strength of the building asso- 
ciations is in their purely mutual and 
co-operative character, their simplicity 
of management, and in the prudence and 
care with which their affairs are adminis- 
tered. They have been an important aid 
in promoting industry, frugality, home 



1907-1908. 

Number Total 

States. of associa- member- Total assets, 

tions. ship. 

Pennsylvania 1,400 374,950 $146,915,600 

Ohio 644 321,780 132,714,147 

New Jersey 415 143,886 67,802,407 

Illinois 502 100,680 50,074,144 

Massachusetts 135 114,705 47,220,074 

New York 240 107,450 37,633.163 

Indiana 334 117,974 34.040.117 

California 110 33,565 19,522,896 

Michigan 55 39,958 14,157,529 

Nebraska 66 39,898 11,422,890 

Louisiana 50 25.437 10,328.307 

Missouri 118 20,625 8,839,903 

North Carolina 81 21,469 5,355,536 

Kan.sas 48 16,343 5.118,842 

lowat 56 15,950 4,577,214 

Wisconsin 52 12,200 4,490,486 

West Virginia 39 10,495 3,834,544 

Maine 35 9.345 3,676,453 

Tennessee 15 4,658 2,590,204 

New Hampshire 16 7,110 1.915,187 

Connecticut 13 2.731 1,804.857 

Minnesotat 18 3,085 1,433,990 

North Dakota 7 2,200 1,286,681 

Other States 975 292,625 114,753,275 

Total 5,424 1,839.119 $731,508,446 

•Decrease. 

■fFigures for 1907 not being available, diita for 1906 lire used. 





Increase 


Increase in 


in mem- 


assets. 


bership. 


$9,274,998 


28,575 


11,619,930 


10,945 


5.814.215 


12,668 


4.051.762 


7.055 


4,662.499 


10.223 


2.378.373 


2.016 


1.838.864 


20.446 


293.958 


•2.615 


1.125.847 


4.000 


2.461,102 


8,109 


1,323.347 


2,057 


652.958' 


1,525 


1,009,294 


4.564 


555.914 


1.810 


319,009 


1,005 


434.094 


1.195 


241,727 


379 


660,706 


1,738 


78,853 


1.635 


199,145 


•600 


295,378 


500 


9.087,275 


22.175 


$58,379,248 


139,405 



DICK. OLIVER. JONES. 



413 



building and home owning, and saving, 
and have added much to the material 
prosperity of our people. Those who have 
watched their growth have been gratified 
over the financial strength which they 
have developed in recent years, and 
which, it is believed, augurs much for 
them in the future. 

The preceding statistical table shows 
by States the number of associations, 
total membership, and total assets for 
such States as have a building and loan 
department which compile statistics. The 
data for all other States are given con- 
solidated under the heading "Other 
States" and the figures are estimated. 



Under Protection Prices of Plate 
Glass Have Been Reduced Seventy- 
five Per Cent. 

From the Congressional Record of July 8, 
1909. 

GEORGE T. OLIVER, of Pennsylvania. 
Mr. President, I am aware that the Sena- 
tors are very tired, and that they do not 
desire to listen to any lengthy discussion 
upon this or any other subject. But I re- 
gard this one as of vital importance to 
a very important industry, not only in 
our State, but all through the Middle 
West; and I think the Senate ought to 
have some little information upon it. 

In 1875, before the establishment of 
the plate-glass industry in the United 
States, the smaller sizes of plate glass 
sold at 71 cents per square foot. They 
are now selling at 18i/4 cents per square 
foot. The larger sizes then sold at $1.69 
per square foot. They are now selling 
at 43 cents per square foot. All this 
has been brought about through the en- 
terprise of the American plate-glass man- 
ufacturers under the liberal encourage- 
ment given by the Protective Tariff. 

It may be asked, "Why is it necessary 
to give even this slight increase at this 
time?" I will explain that in a very few 
words. 

When the industry was established in 
this country, the demand for plate glass 
was confined almost entirely to the very 
large sizes. The smaller sizes were sup- 
plied through breakage and the cutting 
out of flaws that were found in the larger 
plates. Of late years the demand has 
entirely changed, and the time will soon 
come when the demand for the smaller 
§izeg will be greater th?in that for the 



large ones. . As the duty on the small 
sizes is confessedly much less, and, in 
fact, so low that they are sold for less 
than actual cost, the manufacturers find 
it absolutely necessary, in order to sus- 
tain themselves in business, that they 
shall be allowed this small advance in the 
duties upon the smaller sizes. 



When Free=Trade Stops Domestic 
Production, Prices Always Go Up. 

From the Congressional Record of July 8, 
1909. 

WESLEY L. JONES, of Washington. 
Mr. President, I desire to say that while 
arsenic is on the free list and has been 
for some time, it seems to me that the 
conditions in this country will warrant 
placing it on the dutiable list from a 
Protective standpoint. 

I will not take the time of the Senate 
except merely to mention that in the 
Geological Survey report it is stated that 
there is enough arsenic going out 
through the fumes of the smokestacks of 
the smelters in Butte, Mont., to supply 
the entire market in this country. We 
have a good many mines in different 
parts of the country that have worked 
intermittently from time to time, but 
on account of the reduced price they 
have had to stop. In the State of 
Washington we have a smelter that 
runs once in a while, but it has not 
been running for the last two or three 
years. Four or five years ago it pro- 
duced three or four hundred tons of ar- 
senic. As a result, the price went down. 
The imports into the country range 
about 10,000,000 pounds, and the pro- 
duction is only about 1,700 tons, running 
as high as 3,300 tons. 

There is some objection to this be- 
cause, it is contended, it is likely to 
raise the price. I wish to call the at- 
tention of the Senate to the range of 
prices under Free-Trade. In 1901 the 
price in New York was 3*^ to 41/^ cents 
a pound; in 1902 it was from nearly 3 
cents to 3 1-3 cents; in 1903 it was 3 
to 3% cents; in 1906 it was 4 3-10 
cents; in 1907 it was from 5 to 8 cents 
a pound. 

The records show that when we have 
produced arsenic by mining it in this 
country and have refined it, the price 
has come down; but when they stopped 
doing it, then the price has gone up. 
So, in my judgment, jf we can place on 



414 



JONES. SMOOT. DICK. 



the small duty that will ericourage the 
development of the resources in the 
product actually going to waste in this 
country, instead of raising the price, we 
will have a stable price and one less 
than the foreigner gets when our smelt- 
ers are closed. He puts the price down 
for a time, but as soon as the smelter 
closes he puts the price up, and instead 
of our people getting arsenic cheaper 
they have to pay more for it. 



If Protection Were Removed, Farm- 
ers Would Have No Market for 
Their Sugar Beets. 

From the Congressional Record of July 8, 
1909. 

REED SMOOT, of Utah. For years 
we have been building up a home sugar 
industry, which makes sugar instead of 
merely refining an imported raw ma- 
terial. The duty on the raw product 
Protects our farmers, who are producers 
of the raw material, while the duty on 
the finished product Protects the beet- 
sugar manufacturers, and incidentally 
the seaboard refiners. With a duty on 
the finished product and no duty on the 
raw product, the latter would be fur- 
nished by tropical and European plant- 
ers, whose labor is cheap, instead of 
by American farmers, whose labor is 
dear. On the other hand, unless we 
afford a full measure of Protection to 
the finished product — be it refined sugar 
or washed unrefined sugar for direct 
consumption — of our beet-sugar fac- 
tories, they will cease to operate, and 
the farmers will have no market for 
their beets. 

All beet-sugar producers are refiners, 
making a finished product for the mar- 
ket. Their Protection lies in keeping 
out all semirefined or bleached sugars 
testing above No. 16 Dutch standard 
which can go into direct consumption, 
and unless these sugars pay the full 
duty of $1.90 it will give their foreign 
competitors an advantage over them not 
Intended by Congress. 



The Broom and Brush Making In- 
dustries Should Not Be Exposed to 
Oriental Competition. 

From the Congressional Record of July 8, 
1909. 
CHARLES DICK, of Ohio, In the 



present law and in this bill brooms of the 
coarsest construction and toilet brushes 
of the finest make are dutiable at the 
same rate. That is not the only incon- 
gruity. Although the production of 
brooms in this country aggregates eleven 
millions annually, the importations are 
about $2,000 worth; while of toilet 
brushes the importations now exceed a 
million and a half dollars, and the in- 
crease goes on with each recurring 
month. 

In the amendment which I have sent 
to the desk we do not disturb the rates 
on paint brushes and brushes of that 
character. The importations in that 
line are immaterial, and therefore there 
is no reason for disturbing them. The 
rate on brooms is cut from 40 to 25 per 
cent, which can not injure the industry, 
since there are no importations. 

But the brush industry is one the 
ramifications of which extend into every 
State in the Union. There is no trust, 
no combination, but the most persistent 
competKion. Every feature of brush 
making — the handle, the bristle, the wire, 
the boxing; every feature — is taxed or 
has a Tariff levied against it. 

In the present bill, I think with a sin- 
gle exception, there are no reductions in 
any of these parts, as they might be 
called, or elements in brush making, and 
there has been a distinct advance on the 
fiber, which Is being used in lieu of 
bristles. 

Our Greatest Competitor Is the Japanese 
Brush Maker. 

The greatest competitor, or the one to 
be most feared, is the Japanese brush 
maker. Importations have grown from 
$660 worth in 1890 until they now reach 
a half million dollars; and the brush in- 
dustry, without some help, is in serious 
danger. 

The request for an increase of only 10 
per cent, it seems to me, ought to be 
conceded to an industry which is so 
important and which ought to be en- 
tirely with our own people. 

I know there has been a very general 
objection on the part of importers, but 
the brush industry is here asking, not 
for generous treatment, but for enough 
to save it from destruction by the for- 
eign producer, and especially the Ori- 
ental. 

Tlie domestic manufactures of brooms 
and brushes amount to $21,100,000 an- 
nually. The amendment propo.sed. I re- 



DICK. LaFOLLETTE. 



415 



peat, is primarily for the segregation of 
brooms from brushes!, and thereby to 
supply separate brush and broom sched- 
ules. The object is to separate articles 
having no relation in common, for by 
reason of the single schedule of the past, 
misleading and erroneous statistics as 
to domestic manufacture and imports, 
have had a controlling influence. This 
works great injury to the toilet-brush 
manufacturers. It is not regarded prop- 
er in making schedules to include dis- 
similar articles in a single paragraph, 
as, for instance, hats and also shoes; 
and, so long as toilet brushes and broom- 
corn brooms are in one paragraph, the 
Incongruity is fully apparent. 

The raising of broom corn is an im- 
portant industry. It grows as does hay 
or fodder in the field. Brushes are the 
product largely of the bristle of the do- 
mestic pig, and of the wild hog of the 
countries of Siberia, India, China, 
France, and Germany; and the woods 
used are the timbers of the United 
States, South Africa. South America, 
and Mexico. 

What Greater Protection /s Needed? 

The importers are protesting against 
the proposed amendment. They use the 
Improperly associated brush and broom 
statistics as showing comparison of the 
imports of brushes, and that includes all 
kinds, for 1908, $1,681,640, as being 10 
per cent of the domestic product of the 
brush manufacturers, but in reality it 
is the output of the broom factories, 
$11,000,000, plus every variety of brushes 
produced, $10,000,000. No more mislead- 
ing or unfair statement could be made 
to the United States Senate, nor could 
greater unfairness be exhibited toward 
the toilet-brush manufacturers, for, 
under the adverse Tariff conditions, they 
only produce in this country $3,500,000 in 
toilet brushes annually out of gross brush 
production of every variety of $10,000,- 
000. 

If it is the intention of the Tariff- 
making power to reconstruct the Tariff 
along lines that will exclude unnatural 
foreign labor competition, commensu- 
rate with, but not beyond, what will se- 
cure work for our skilled laborer at liv- 
ing wage scales, that will let him enjoy 
his ambitions, have home and property, 
instead of looking forward to possible 
trade extinction, this status must be 
maintained in contradistinction to the 
Mongolian laborer, who may be satisfied 



to live on rice and fish and to wear the 
poorest garb. In the organized move- 
ment of the Orientals for commercial su- 
premacy over the Caucasian countries 
their success is already notably evidenced 
in the statistical showing of brush im- 
ports here, given out by the Bureau of 
Statistics. They are mostly toilet 
brushes. 



Rejection of an Amendment Provid- 
ing for Tariff Reduction in the 
Guise of Reciprocity. 

From the Congressional Record of July 8, 
1909. 

ROBERT M. LaFOLLETTE, of Wis- 
consin. The object of this amendment 
is to enable the President to obtain spe- 
cial concessions on American products 
in foreign countries on which no mini- 
mum rates are provided in the existing 
Tariffs of foreign countries, or on which 
the minimum rates of those countries are 
not sufficiently low. 

This amendment authorizes the Presi- 
dent to reduce existing rates to an ex- 
tent not exceeding 20 per cent of these 
rates. It revives, as Members of the 
Senate will remember, the provisions of 
section 4 of the Dingley act for all those 
articles on which rates have not been 
reduced to the extent of 20 per cent in 
the bill now under consideration. It 
therefore calls for no greater reduction 
of duty than Congress authorized twelve 
years ago in enacting the Dingley law. 
On the other hand, it will give the Pres- 
ident the means to obtain special reduc- 
tions in favor of American products 
which he will otherwise be unable to 
obtain. 

If this amendment is embodied into 
the law. Tariff wars with some of the 
countries, which are now extremely 
probable, will become impossible. On 
the other hand, it would not only secure 
to the products of America all existing 
minimum Tariffs, but would enable the 
President to secure further reductions on 
special American products which are not 
adequately treated in the Tariffs of for- 
eign countries. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question 
is on agreeing to the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Wisconsin. 

The amendment was rejected. 



410 



ALDRICH. CLAPP. 



Views of the Majority Must Control 
in Matters of Party Policy and 
Legislation. 

From the Congressional Record of July 8, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. Mr. President, I have been in the 
public service long enough to have seen 
several occasions when individual Mem- 
bers of this body, or individuals outside 
of the body, have thought that they were 
wiser than their party associates, and 
that their views should control the action 
of the party, notwithstanding the vote 
of majorities. I have seen men in this 
Senate change from one side of this 
aisle to the other. I remember in a party 
convention when men who had stood 
high in the party councils left it be- 
cause they thought at the moment that 
their views upon public questions were 
the views of a party and not of individ- 
uals. I say to the Senator from Indi- 
ana and to his friends that the Repub- 
lican party is a party of majorities, and 
the views of the majority in matters of 
legislation control party policies and con- 
trol governmental policies. 

The Senator from Indiana does not 
speak for the Republican party. He has 
no right to call here the name of the 
President of the United States in sup- 
port of any of the suggestions he has 
made. Those of us who are here repre- 
senting States and voting as a major- 
ity in this Chamber, represent the Re- 
publican party, and not individual Sen- 
ators, whatever may be their standing 
or whatever may have been their service 
to the party. 

Mr. President, the bill which will be 
voted upon in this Senate in a few mo- 
ments is a revision, which carries out 
to its letter every pledge of the Repub- 
lican party. If Senators shall see fit to 
vote against it on account of their in- 
dividual views, that is a matter for them 
to determine; but I suggest to those 
Senators that they can not attempt to 
speak for the party without a protest 
from the men who represent States here, 
as I have said before, that have elected, 
and can and will elect Republican Pres- 
idents, whatever may be the attitude of 
individuals, either in this body or else- 
where. 



"It Takes More Thaii the State of 
Rhode Island to Read the State of 
Minnesota Out of the Republican 
Party." 

From the Congressional Record of July 8, 
1909. 

MOSES E. CLAPP, of Minnesota. The 
Senator from Rhode Island says the Sen- 
ator from Indiana has no right to refer 
to the President in this discussion. For 
the last three or four days it has been 
bruited around here and drummed into 
our ears that we must do this and that 
in the name and at the behest of the 
President. 

And the Senator from Indiana was well 
warranted in referring to the fact that 
we had sought, during these last few 
months, to follow the pledges that were 
emphasized and crystallized as the party 
promises in the utterances of the Presi- 
dent. 

The Senator from Rhode Island has 
referred to the historic past, wherein 
men were divided from their party, and 
in the end found themselves disappointed 
in popular support. That was upon a 
mere question of whether we should use 
one metal or the other for our currency. 
And notwithstanding their disappoint- 
ment, I should be satisfied to leave no 
grander legacy to my family than the 
fame and the honor of the men who 
walked out of the St. Louis convention, 
and the fame and the honor they have 
earned in the estimation of the Amer- 
ican people since that historic event, I 
do not mean to imply by any means that 
there is a parallel between this case and 
that. 

In this fight there is a broader and 
deeper question than the mere question 
of dollars and cents. 

In the history of this country there 
came a time when the people believed 
there was a question involving excessive 
rates of duty that went to the very 
spirit of our institutions. It may be 
that a reaction will come. It may be 
that we who have stood on the skirmish 
lines will fall in the struggle; but I want 
to say that there are others to take our 
places; for this is not a mere question 
of the basis of a metallic currency, but 
a question that goes to the very founda- 
tion of competition and individuality in 
the processes of American industrial life. 

I rose only to say that at the proper 
time I shall reply more In detail. I 



OLAPP. FOSTER. 



41' 



merely wish to say now, that my silence 
may not be misconstrued, that the crit- 
icism of the Senator from Rhode Island 
neither has stung to silence nor en- 
tombed at least one Senator. 

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the hour 
is late and I simply wish to say on this 
occasion that it takes more than the 
State of Rhode Island and the Senator 
from Rhode Island to read the State of 
Minnesota out of the Republican party. 
And when Senators get up and talk in 
such an arrogant and overbearing man- 
ner and attempt to lecture us who have 
views of our own on the Tariff question, 
I submit it does not come with good 
grace. I will say to the Senator from 
Rhode Island that when that little State 
shall have perished from the face of the 
earth, the State of Minnesota, with its 
5,000,000 people and its 150,000 Republi- 
can votes, will be found uppermost in 
the column of the Republican party, and 
the Senator from Rhode Island can not 
read that State out of the party. 



No Law of Good Morals or of Nations 
Which Requires Us to Sacrifice Our 
Industries to the Filipinos. 

From the Congressional Record of July g, 
1909. 

MURPHY J. FOSTER, of Louisiana. 
I know that the President of the United 
States favors this provision of the bill, 
and that he earnestly desires its passage. 
I know he does not believe that the im- 
portation of the amount of sugar and 
tobacco provided for, free of duty, will 
in any manner affect injuriously those 
industries in this country, while, on the 
other hand, it will prove of immense 
benefit to the people of the Philippines. 

I wish that I could agree wuth him, for 
I have the highest respect for his judg- 
ment and the greatest confidence and 
faith in his wisdom and patriotism. My 
opposition to, and convictions against, 
such legislation, however, are so deep 
and fixed that I feel it due to myself 
to protest against the adoption of such 
a policy by this Congress. 

I am opposed to this paragraph for 
many reasons. In the first place, I am 
opposed to a policy on the part of this 
Government which will admit to the 
American markets any products of the 
Philippines, whether manufactured or 
agricultural, free of duty, when such 



products come in competition with sim- 
ilar products raised in this country, 
mainly on the ground that the American 
laborer, manufacturer, and farmer can 
not successfully compete with the cheap 
labor of the Orient. 

In the second place, I am opposed to 
such a policy, because if we admit an- 
nually 300,000 tons of sugar, 300,000 
pounds of wrapper tobacco, 2,000,000 
pounds of filler tobacco, and 70,000,000 
cigars, such legislation must logically 
culminate in the admission of all the su- 
gar and tobacco raised in those islands 
free of duty. 

Most Senators are familiar with the 
case of Cuba. You will recall the tearful 
stories of distress; 

The Humbug About the Moral Obligations 
of This Country; 

the glittering promises of trade; all of 
which was to be our own, in return for 
concessions to Cuban sugar. In response 
to those appeals the Cuban reciprocity 
treaty was entered into by the Fifty- 
seventh Congress, by which a reduction 
of 20 per cent was allowed on the im- 
portations from that island. 

The trade monopoly that was to have 
been ours has proven a veritable will-o'- 
the-wisp. We have received no benefits 
other than would have come in the nat- 
ural course of expandmg trade, while, on 
the other hand, we have poured a golden 
stream into that island year after year 
without receiving any adequate benefits 
from the concessions we have made. The 
production of sugar has increased from 
975,000 tons in 1893 to 1,449,316 tons in 
1907, all of which has been exported to 
this country. 

Why should we enter upon such a pol- 
icy? We have already given the Fili- 
pino free markets in this country for all 
his noncompetitive products and have re- 
duced the Tariff 25 per cent on his su- 
gar and tobacco. 

It is true we have conquered these 
people; that we have taken possession 
of their territory, and national honor 
and national justice demand that w6 
should treat them fairly and justly. 

But our first duty is to our own coun- 
try and our own people, and there is no 
law of good morals or of nations which 
requires us to sacrifice our industries or 
our people to them. 

Mr. President, we can not raise sugar 
in this country, beet or cane, in compe- 



418 



FOSTER. AUSTIN. MILLER. SULZER. 



tition with the cheap labor of the Trop- 
ics. It is no use to disguise this fact. 
The Philippines to-day, with proper cul- 
tivation, can ship their sugar into this 
marlcet and pay the Tariff and under- 
sell the American producer; and I predict 
that with the encouragement of Free- 
Trade this sugar in less than a decade 
will destroy the immense beet and cane 
interests of this country. 



mine since entering upon my duties as 
a Member of Congress has been more 
heartily approved by my constituents 
than the vote I cast against that bill. 



A Southern Republican Who Voted 
Against the House Bill Because It 
Was Not Sufficiently Protective. 

From the Congressional Record of July 12, 
J909. 

RICHARD W. AUSTIN, of Tennessee. 
Mi". Speaker, to-day the House will 
take action on the Tariff bill by disa- 
greeing to the Senate amendments and 
send tlie measure to a joint conference 
committee. 

I regret that I will not have an oppor- 
tunity to record my vote in favor of the 
Senate amendments wherein the rates 
were increased, especially upon the items 
of lumber, scrap iron, coal, and iron ore. 

While approving the increases men- 
tioned, I would gladly go on record 
against certain reductions that body 
made in a number of the schedules of 
the Payne bill in which the people of 
east Tennessee and the South are in- 
terested. 

The truth compels me to make the 
public acknowledgment that the Aldrich 
bill is a great improvement upon the bill 
passed by the House on April 9, and I 
entertain the hope that the result of 
the labors of the joint conference com- 
mittee and the final action of Congress 
on the subject will confirm this opinion. 

The American people are not only in- 
debted to Senator Aldrich and those Re- 
publican Members of the Senate who 
stood loyally by him, but the people of 
the South are under a lasting debt to 
Senators Elkins and Scott, of West Vir- 
ginia; Bradley, of Kentucky, and to the 
Democratic Senators who joined them In 
voting for the Protection and continued 
development of the inexhaustible re- 
sources of their section. 

I stood on this side and cast the only 
Republican vote against the passage of 
the Payne bill, and up to this good hour 
have not received an adverse criticism 
from a voter in the district I have the 
honor to represent. In fact, no act of 



A Protective Tariff Tax Is Not Only 
Equitable, but Has Always Brought 
Prosperity to the American People. 

From the Congressional Record of July 12, 
1909. 

JAMES M. MILLER, of Kansas. We 
are called upon now to pass upon the 
question whether or not we are willing 
to place a tax upon corporations. Dur- 
ing this discussion there has been a good 
bit of talk, especially among our friends 
on the other side of the aisle, about a 
tax upon wealth and not a tax upon 
want or upon poverty. I have never 
heard of anybody anywhere, either in 
this Hall or elsewhere, advocating any 
tax either upon poverty or upon want, 
and I imagine that the man who would 
advocate a tax upon either poverty or 
want would eventually find himself in 
the insane asylum, where he belongs. It 
may be all right for political purposes 
and to seek to make political capital to 
try to make the poor people of tkis 
country believe that some political party 
Is wanting to rob them. 

There is no political party that Is fool- 
ish enough to attempt to rob the poor, 
and there is no political party in this 
country that has any desire to put any 
tax of any kind upon any portion of our 
people greater than their ability to bear 
the burden; but the Republican party 
has alwaj'-s favored an equitable system 
of taxation, and it is the belief of this 
party that all classes of our people ought 
to bear their just proportion of the bur- 
dens of government, and, whether they 
be rich or poor, that they ought to be 
called upon alike to bear those burdens. 

Most Equitable of All Taxes. 

Mr. SULZER. Does the gentleman 
think a Protective-Tariff tax is an equit- 
able tax? 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. I think that 
a Protective-Tariff tax properly levied 
is not only equitable, but that it is a tax 
that has always brought prosperity to 
the American people. 

It has always given employment to the 
labor of this country, and under this 



MILLER. JAMES. RUCKER. COLE. 



419 



system for the past twelve years our 
people have enjoyed the most marvelous 
prosperity the world has ever seen. I 
am surprised that the gentleman from 
New York comes here and complains 
about legislation that has given to the 
people of that great State the wealth it 
has within the last twelve years. 

Mr, SULZER, Does the gentleman 
claim that there ever was a line written 
in any Protective-Tariff law or tax bill 
adopted by the Republican party that 
benefited the laboring man? 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. I say that 
every line ever written in any Republi- 
can platform and enacted into law upon 
the subject of Protection has brought 
wealth to the American people and has 
given employment to the laboring men 
of this country, and that it has made the 
poor man rich and not the rich man 
poor, as advocated by some gentlemen 
on that side. 

Bankers Brought on the Panic. 

Mr. JAMES. The gentleman says that 
the Protective policy of the Republican 
party has brought great wealth to the 
country and benefited the laboring men. 
I would like to ask him what brought on 
the panic and threw 3,000,000 men out 
of employment? 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. Some bank- 
ers of this country brought on a finan- 
cial panic. It was not the fact that la- 
boring men were out of employment. I 
remember the language used by Mr. 
Gompers in the campaign during the 
time when the Democratic party was 
in power, when he said that more than 
two and a half million laboring men of 
this country were out of employment, 
and that their wives and children were 
begging for bread. And I remember 
shortly after that time, when the Re- 
publican party enacted the law of 1897, 
when nobody was out of employment 
and nobody begging for bread. 

Mr. BYRD. I want to ask the gentle- 
man this question: If the Republican 
policies of this country during the last 
forty years have been so beneficial, why 
is it that the Republican party wants to 
steal all the good things out of the Dem- 
ocratic platform and enact them into 
law? [Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, 
it is not necessary for me to discuss the 
reasons why the Republican party wants 
to enact certain kinds of legislation. 
This great party never asks the Demo- 



cratic party when or how it shall legis- 
late; in all the years of its history it 

Has Responded to the Wishes of the 
People. 

And now, as in the past, it is about 
to write upon the statutes another wise 
and beneficent act of legislation; and 
this in response to the wishes of the 
American people and in accord with the 
promise made in the last national Re- 
publican convention. And when this 
act is consummated, as it will be in a 
very few days, the Tariff will have been 
revised downward, the pledges of the 
party sacredly kept, and the American 
people will enter upon a new era of 
prosperity. 

Mr. RUCKER, of Missouri. Will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. Well, I will 
yield to the gentleman from Missouri; 
he is always fair. 

Mr. RUCKER, of Missouri. I under- 
stand that gentleman to say that the 
last forty years, with the exception of 
four years, under Republican rule, they 
have benefited all the people, and espe- 
cially the laboring men. I would like to 
ask the gentleman to explain, if his con- 
clusions are correct, why it is that to- 
day there is a larger percentage of 
American people who own no homes than 
ever before in the world? 

Mr. MILLER, of Kansas. Mr. Speak- 
er, I simply say the gentleman from 
Missouri is mistaken. 

And on the contrary I aver that there 
are more laboring men in America to- 
day who own their homes than at any 
other period in the history of the Re- 
public, and that there are more homes 
owned by the laboring people of Ameri- 
ca to-day than are owned by all the la- 
borers of the rest of the world. 



If It Is a Gold Brick, Who Manufac= 
tured the Brick? 

From the Congressional Record of July 12, 
1909. 
RALPH D. COLE, of Ohio. Mr. 
Speaker, here is the section on the in- 
come tax in the Democratic platform: 

We favor an income tax as part of our 
revenue system, and we urge the submis- 
sion of a constitutional amendment, spe- 
cifically authorizing Congress to levy and 
collect a tax upon individual and corpo- 
rate incomes, to the end that wealth may 
bear its proportionate share of the bur- 
dens of the Federal Government. 



420 



COLE. DAVIDSON. STEENERSON. 



Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
Arkansas contends that the Republican 
party is supporting this proposition at 
this time because it merely means post- 
ponement. What did the Democratic 
party mean when it inserted that plank 
in their platform? If that is a gold 
brick that the House of Representatives 
is handing out to the American public, 
who manufactured the gold brick? It 
had its origin in the Democratic platform 
at Denver, and was not constructed and 
foisted upon the country by the Repub- 
lican party. So you can not charge the 
Republican party with being guilty of 
attempting to postpone the coming of 
an income tax in that way. That prop- 
osition is charged up against the Demo- 
cratic platform at Denver. 



The Development and Success of 
American Industries Have Fully 
Justified the Protective Systems. 

From the Congressional Record of July 15, 
1909. 

JAMES H. DAVIDSON, of Wisconsin. 
What, then, is our duty? It is to fairly 
and honestly keep that pledge made to 
the people. It is to revise the Tariff 
along the lines laid down by the Repub- 
lican platform. It is not to so legislate 
as to drive out of existence any indus- 
try honestly conducted and giving em- 
ployment to American wage-earners, but 
it is to so fix the duties that while af- 
fording revenue sufficient for the needs 
of the Government honestly adminis- 
tered, they will give that Protection, and 
that Protection only, which measures 
the difference in cost of production, to- 
gether with a reasonable profit on the 
capital invested. 

The rate of duty should be such as 
will afford the American manufacturer a 
home market for his products, after 
paying to his employees the highest pos- 
sible compensation for their labor, and 
to himself a reasonable profit on the 
money actually invested in the enter- 
prise. His profit should not be an un- 
reasonable one. It should not be made 
on watered stock or over-capitalized or 
over-valued plants. I have no sympathy 
with that demand for such high duties as 
will enable manufacturers to accumu- 
late millions, while their employees are 
only compensated sufficiently to barely 
keep body and soul together. 

Those who desire to enjoy the benefits 



of the policy of Protection ought to be 
patriotic enough and manly enough to 
share equitably with their employees the 
benefits of that policy. 

The producer of a Protected product 
has no cause for complaint against the 
application of a reasonable duty to Pro- 
tect the product produced by another. 

Being a producer as well as a con- 
sumer he enjoys a benefit from this pol- 
icy. 

The producers have been generously 
cared for by the Protective system. The 
consumers, those who have only labor to 
sell, ought now to be recognized. 

The development and success of Amer- 
ican industries have fully justified the 
Protective system.. So long as there is a 
necessity, within reasonable limits, to 
impose duties in order that an industry 
may prosper, the people will not com- 
plain, but when Protection affords ex- 
travagant profits to the beneficiaries and 
compels self-denial and even want 
among millions of citizens, the system 
becomes an abuse. 

My desk has been covered with peti- 
tions asking that sugar be placed on the 
free list. Sugar is a necessity, and I 
would like to have it furnished to the 
consumer at the lowest possible cost. 

On the other hand, we know the sugar 
industry is capable of extensive devel- 
opment in this country, that there are 
large areas capable of producing sugar 
beets, and that unless stimulated by a 
Protective Tariff the sugar industry can 
not be developed. 

The duty on sugar returns annually 
about $60,000,000 of revenue to the Treas- 
ury. If sugar is to be placed on the 
free list, some otlier source must be 
found from which to derive this revenue. 



The Promise Was to Revise the Tar=. 
iff on Protective Lines. 

From the Congressional Record of July 15, 
1909. 
HALVOR STEENERSON, of Minne- 
sota. A great deal has been said about 
revision downward, and whether our 
party promised such a revision. In view 
of what I have said, I submit there can 
be no occasion for tH^t^ dispute. The prom- 
ise was to revise the Tariff on Protect- 
ive lines and to adopt as the measure of 
that Protection the rule above indicated. 
Whether such a revision shall be up or 
down depends upon what \\\Q present 



STEENERSON. SIMS. GLASS. 



421 



duties are and whether they In any- 
given case exceed this measure. 

It seems pretty well established by 
the facts before us that in most instances 
the application of this rule of revision 
will result in revision downward, al- 
though in some instances the reverse. 
This bill, as it left the House, was in 
the vast majority of the items in the 
schedules a revision downward. 



*'If Protection Is Right and the Best 
Policy, Then We Democrats Have 
Been Radically Wrong." 

From the Congressional Record of July 15, 
1909. 

THETUS W. SIMS, of Tennessee. It 
is well to remember that during the coal 
strike a few years ago even the high- 
Protectionist Republicans and our "anti- 
free raw-material Democrats" all joined 
in voting to suspend the Tariff on coal 
for a period of one or two years, and 
not a Democrat in the House voted 
against free coal at that time. 

But to cap the climax, the Finance 
Committee in the Senate reported the 
duty on pineapples at the present Ding- 
ley rate, which is a Protective rate, and 
so intended when put on in the Dingley 
bill. 

But some of our Democratic Senators 
were not satisfied to let this Republican 
duty remain, so a Democratic member 
of the Finance Committee moved an 
amendment in the Senate to increase 
the Dingley rate on pineapples 128 ^/^ per 
cent, which was carried by a vote of 34 
to 30. Nine of the 34 votes to increase 
this rate were Democrats, while 8 Dem- 
ocrats only voted against the increase. 

Does this look like our "antifree-raw- 
material Democrats" are suffering much 
on account of the Republicans failing 
to revise the Tariff downward? 

Mr. Speaker, if Protection is robbery, 
as we Democrats have often charged — 
if it is unconstitutional and immoral — 
how can a Democrat so believing vote 
for and support Tariff rates that are in- 
tended to affect favorably the value of 
some product or products of his State or 
district, even if incidentally some rev- 
enue is received by the Government, 
while favored industries collect by way 
of increased profits from the unwilling 
but helpless consumer five, ten, or even 
twenty times as much money as is paid 
Into the Treasury? 



If Protection is right, is the best policy 
for the whole country, is constitutional, 
then we Democrats have been radically 
wrong all the years of our existence. 



A Democrat Repudiates the Demo- 
cratic Doctrine of Free Raw Ma- 
terials. 

From the Congressional Record of July 1$, 
1909. 

CARTER GLASS, of Virginia. I deny 
that "free raw materials" was "a char- 
acteristic feature" of the Walker Tariff 
act. I assert that no feature of the 
Walker bill so much as squinted at the 
discriminating dogma of "free raw ma- 
terials." I have here at this moment 
the Walker Tariff act as approved July 
30, 1846, and likewise the report which 
accompanied the bill, dated December 
3, 1845. The bill does not embody, and 
the report directly argues against, the 
doctrine of "free raw materials." 

We were not dealing with a theory. 
We were confronted with the plain cer- 
tainty of Tariff legislation by the Re- 
publican party in Congress on strictly 
Protection lines; and, this being the 
case, I did not consider it my duty to 
join with a score of Canadian-border and 
Middle West Republicans to put certain 
products of Virginia and the South on 
the free list for the peculiar advantage 
of their constituents, only to see these 
same Republicans, a moment later, unite 
again with the rest of their party and 
tax the people of my State and section 
beyond endurance on the products of 
the North and Middle West. 

To the extent that the House of Rep- 
resentatives was permitted by the Re- 
publican rule to participate in the work 
of making a Tariff law, I voted my best 
judgment and my clearest conception 
of sound Democratic doctrine. Knowing 
as everybody did know, that it must be 
a Protective-Tariff law, I unhesitatingly 
declined to yield every advantage that 
my State and section have under the 
revenue features of the existing law 
while every product of northern mills 
and factories was being highly Pro- 
tectedr 



422 



DRISCOLL. KEIFER. 



The Consumer Would Get No Benefit 
from a Reduction of the Duty on 
Salt. 

From the Congressional Record of July 15, 
1909. 

MICHAEL. E. DRISCOLL, of New- 
York. Syracuse salt is used very largely 
in the manufacture of ice cream and by 
trolley companies in the movement of 
their cars. Ice cream would not be re- 
duced in price on account of this reduc- 
tion of the Tariff on salt, nor would 
railroad fares; nor would the public gen- 
erally get any benefit out of it. And in 
fact neither railroad companies nor ice 
cream manufacturers, nor any other 
class of people who are using this grade 
of salt, are making any complaint be- 
cause it is too high or demanding any 
reduction of the import duty. 

Why should an attempt be made to 
paralyze this industry which is strug- 
gling hard for existence and practicing 
the strictest economy and conservatism 
in order to continue in business? The 
ultimate consumer is not demanding it, 
for salt is so abundant and cheap that 
no complaint is justified. Those people 
who think the duty should be reduced 
or removed from trust-made goods are 
not demanding it, for it is not claimed 
that the salt manufacturers of this coun- 
try are in a trust or combination to cor- 
ner the market and raise the price of 
their product. Advocates of free raw 
materials are not demanding it, for salt 
as it goes into the market is a finished 
article. If all our Protected interests 
were as fairly disposed toward their em- 
ployees and the public as are the salt 
manufacturers, and willing to receive as 
small compensation for their own serv- 
ices and as reasonable profits on their 
investments, there would be no demand 
for a revision of the Dingley schedules. 
And it is not the intention of the people 
who have been clamoring for this re- 
vision to destroy or curtail any legiti- 
mate industry, especially one which is 
producing a necessary article at a rea- 
sonable price and satisfied with very 
small profits. This applies to the salt 
manufacturers. They have provoked no 
opposition, for they have not become rich 
at the expense of their fellows. They 
are modest and unassuming, willing to 
pay good wages and make small returns 
on their business investment, and should 
not be disturbed to no purpose. 



President Taft Had No Leaning To- 
ward Democratic Tariff Policies. 

From the Congressional Record of July 16, 
1909. 

J. WARREN KEIFER, of Ohio. I 
shall first take up the question of the 
Republican pledge for Tariff revision. 

The Republican national platform was 
adopted in June, 1908, at Chicago, and 
it was, in essential parts, bottomed on 
the Ohio State Republican platform 
adopted in March, 1908. 

It expressed the will and wishes of 
the great Republican party that had cre- 
ated the system of Protection, and 
which, in above ten years' time under 
the present Tariff laws, had proved prac- 
tically its efficacy and potency in build- 
ing up home industries and in creating 
a wealth not dreamed of in earlier 
times; and had also maintained a scale 
of wages for the skilled and unskilled 
laborers not attained or attainable in 
any other country since the dawn of 
civilization, while at the same time the 
system had so operated that every ar- 
ticle manufactured under Protection In 
the United States had come to be pro- 
duced and sold to the consumer, not- 
withstanding the high scale of wages 
paid, at far less than it had sold for 
prior to its Protection when produced by 
the cheap labor of foreign countries. This 
cheapening of price to consumers of 
manwfactures came when the lands of 
the farmer and the wages of the laborer 
went up and continued to be compara- 
tively high, often double and treble that 
paid for the same kind of labor in all 
the old producing and manufacturing 
countries of Europe and Asia. And the 
American farmer now pays, in general, 
more than 50 per cent less for his imple- 
ments of superior quality than when his 
products and lands were comparatively 
cheap. 

The 1908 Republican Tariff plank is 
probably more specific than any which 
preceded it in declaring for customs 
duties high enough to "equal the differ- 
ence between the cost of production at 
home and abroad, together with a rea- 
sonable profit for American industries," 
and in expressing a policy "to preserve, 
without excessive duties, that security 
against foreign competition to which 
American manufacturers, farmers, and 
producers are entitled," and "also to 
maintain the high standard of living of 
the wage-earners of this country," and 



KEIFER. 



423 



in declaring them "the most direct ben- 
eficiaries of the Protective system." 

President Taft, in his acceptance 
speech (Cincinnati. July 28, 1908), in 
the most comprehensive manner, not 
only indorsed his party's Tariff plank of 
1908, but also the Tariff policy of his 
party of former years; and, as though 
fearing he might be misunderstood in so 
doing, and seemingly to remove all doubt 
as to what Tariff policy he favored, he, 
in that speech, reiterated and somewhat 
enlarged upon the Tariff plank on which 
he had but recently been nominated. I 
quote a pertinent part of his speech: 

The Republican doctrine of Protection, 
as definitely announced by the Republi- 
can convention of this year and by pre- 
vious conventions, is that a Tariff shall 
be imposed on all imported products, 
whether of the factory, farm, or mine, 
sufl[iciently great to equal the difference 
between the cost of production abroad 
and at home, and that this difference 
should, of course, include the difference 
between the higher wages paid in this 
country and the wages paid abroad, and 
embrace a reasonable profit to the Amer- 
ican producer. A system of Protection 
thus adopted and put in force has led to 
the establishment of a rate of wages here 
that has greatly enhanced the standard 
of living of the laboring man. It is the 
policy of the Republican party perma- 
nently to continue that standard of living. 
In 1897 the Dingley Tariff bill was passed, 
under which we have had, as already 
said, a period of enormous prosperity. 

He lauded, as you see, specially the 
Dingley Tariff act of 1897 as having pro- 
duced "a period of enormous prosperity," 
This does not indicate a desire to strike 
down that act and adopt in its stead a 
policy that would reinaugurate the pe- 
riod of "unparalleled distress" occasioned 
by the Free-Trade Democratic Tariff of 
1894 and the prior promise made to 
adopt it. 

In order that there might be no pos- 
sible chance of misunderstanding his 
view on the Protective policy of the Re- 
publican party, in the same speech he 
said the Democratic party "has not had 
the courage of its previous convictions 
on the subject of the Tariff," and he 
called attention to its having in 1904 
denounced a Tariff "as a system of rob- 
bery," and that it still declares its in- 
tention to so change the Tariff as "to 
depart from the Protective system;" and 
he then followed this by saying that the 
introduction of the Democratic party 
into power, with its avowed purpose as 
to the Tariff, would halt the recovery 
from our recent financial depression and 



produce a business disaster of incom- 
parable proportions. I am tempted to 
read the exact language President Taft 
used in his speech when referring to the 
Democratic Tariff policy. Here it is: 

The Democratic party in its platform 
has not had the courage of its previous 
convictions on the subject of the Tariff, 
denounced by it in 1904 as a system of 
robbery of the many for the benefit of the 
few; but it does declare its intention to 
change the Tariff with a view to reach- 
ing a revenue basis, and thus to depart 
from the Protective system. The intro- 
duction into power of a party with this 
avowed purpose can not but halt the 
gradual recovery from our recent finan- 
cial depression and produce business dis- 
aster compared with which our recent 
panic and depression will seem small in- 
deed. 

His language conclusively shows that 
he had no leaning toward Democratic 
Tariff policies or toward a revision of 
the present Tariff law that would in any 
way endanger the Protective system. 

Campaign and other speeches of Pres- 
ident Taft might be quoted, if necessary, 
showing he stood by the Republican pol- 
icy of Protection. 

The People Rejected the Democratic Plat- 
form. 

The Republican party has long ad- 
hered to a Protective policy. Its plat- 
form requires that this policy shall be 
maintained. The only room for dispute 
among Republicans is over details. 

The people, notwithstanding a solid 
South, rejected the express declaration 
of the Bryan-Democratic-Denver plat- 
form (1908) that— 

We favor immediate revision of the 
Tariff by the reduction of import duties. 

This declaration was supplemented by 
Mr. Bryan's speech of acceptance and by 
Democratic orators all over the land, in 
which Tariff revision, downward only, 
was advocated, and the people were told 
the Republican party did not promise 
such revision. 

The people of this country were gen- 
erally, in the last national campaign im- 
bued with the dangerous business history 
of the Democratic party, and particu- 
larly were they afraid of and dissatis- 
fied with Mr. Bryan, its standard bearer. 
They would not trust him, with all his 
dead issues still clinging to him and 
with his unripe and impractical and dan- 
gerous policies, to which he continued 
to adhere and to force his party to In- 
dorse, among the worst of which was 
his Free-Trade notions. 



42^ 



KEIFER. 



The great, hitherto Democratic, city of 
New York, with its supposed 100,000 
Democratic majority, though its people 
and their capital were largely engaged 
In the import trade, repudiated him and 
supported a great business party with a 
leader who bore aloft the banner of Pro- 
tection to American industries and to 
American laborers. 

Unless our own industries are de- 
stroyed and our laborers turned adrift or 
they work for wages on a par with those 
paid abroad, and the scale of their liv- 
ing is brought down to that of the peo- 
ple of foreign countries, then manufac- 
tured articles will sell in future as in 
the past. It is self-evident that 

Any Tariff Revision Wfiich Results in 
Increased Imports 

will diminish, to the extent of the im- 
ports, home production, prevent the util- 
ization of home material, the employ- 
ment of American capital and labor, and 
send our gold abroad to pay for the im- 
ports. 

Protection of American industries and 
thereby American labor through customs 
duties levied on a uniform principle on 
articles capable of manufacture in the 
United States has proved its greatest 
blessing. 

Our exports in depressed Free-Trade 
times always fall off, and the balance of 
trade with foreign nations is then 
against us; and our gold goes abroad for 
what we buy, and the necessary revenues 
of the Government have to be raised 
from a comparatively poor people, while 
the expenditures of the United States are 
not diminished. If revenues are not col- 
lected on imports, they must be raised 
by other and more objectionable meth- 
ods, such as by inheritance tax, stamp 
tax. corporation tax, income tax, and so 
forth. 

What boots it to the consumer whether 
or not he pays the duty if he has not 
the wherewith or the ability to purchase 
anything to consume? Free-Trade will 
not be a panacea for a man in such con- 
dition. And, for tj^e most part, dia- 
monds, jewels, silks, satins, furs, and 
luxuries of all kinds, usually purchased 
by the rich, bear the highest duties. 

But the consumer pays the import 
duty only when he consumes that which, 
for want of adequate Protection or other 
cause, is not produced at home. 

We Americans are a greedy people and 



voracious consumers of foodstuffs, and 
in other things high livers. In quantity, 
tc say nothing of quality or cost, our 
average consumption of food per capita, 
it is estimated, is about twice as great 
as in Great Britain, France, Belgium, 
Austria, Russia, Turkey, Sweden, or Nor- 
way, and above three times as great as 
in Italy and in some other European 
and in most of the civilized Asiatic and 
South American countries of the world. 
If meats, wheat bread, sugar, and per- 
haps some other foodstuffs are alone 
considered, the disparity in consumption 
per capita is much greater. 

Unless Protection Is Maintained 

to secure employment at remunera- 
tive wages for the millions of our wage- 
earners, they and their families will be 
driven, as in 1893-1897, to consume less 
lood and use less clothing, and all of 
poorer quality. Wages will go down; on 
farms, less grain, cattle, and so forth, 
will be raised and sold at home or 
abroad, even at reduced prices, and 
lands and estates will depreciate in 
value. 

It needs hardly to be stated that pros- 
perous home consumers afford a better 
market for the products of field and 
farm than poor people in distant parts, 
who are too poor to buy much and never 
buy anything their own country can 
supply. 

If Free-Trade comes, it will inevitably 
bring down the price of wheat again to 
50 cents per bushel, flour to three or 
four dollars a barrel, and corn, potatoes, 
and other food products in like propor- 
tion; but the millions of laborers will 
then be out of employment and unable to 
pay the price. 

Bryan and his party in 1896 and 1900 
proposed to increase the price of wheat 
to $1 a bushel through Free Trade and 
free coinage of silver. Protection gave 
the farmer $1 a bushel in sound money. 
Why do poor people leave their native 
land and ancestral homes, where Free- 
Trade exists, and go where Protection 
exists, if the latter increases the cost of 
living and makes the poor poorer? 

They seek a country where they can 
make a living. 

It has always been the case that we 
buy more abroad in a Protective period 
than in a Free-Trade period of like du- 
ration. It is thus that the customs rev- 
enues are kept up to maintain the Gov- 
ernment. 



KEIFER. 



425 



The question of revenue aside, uni- 
versal Free-Trade is far preferable in 
this country to Protection through duties 
on imports on only a few of the many 
important industries. Protection must 
be. as nearly as possible, national or uni- 
versal, and equitably applied and admin- 
istered, or it will not succeed. Pro- 
tection thus applied 

Can Not Promote Trusts or Monopolies, 

while Protection only on particular ar- 
ticles, like Free-Trade, will inevitably 
foster them. Common sense teaches us 
that trusts and monopolies prosper 
greatest when supplied with material, 
duty free. Free-Trade England is the 
normal home of monopolies. 

Free-Trade, experience has proved, fa- 
cilitates the formation of combinations, 
monopolies, and trusts. The poorer the 
masses of people are, the more helpless 
they are to resist the power and influence 
of capital and the greed of the monopo- 
list, or to Protect themselves by suc- 
cessful competition. 

Legislation that paralyzes or destroys 
established home industries or prevents 
their being successfully established is 
a certain means of creating poverty and 
distress and will prove to be a political 
crime. It is not, and never has been, a 
crime to possess an estate when ac- 
quired by honest toil and methods, nor is 
it, or has it ever been, a badge of merit 
to be poor and dependent. Poverty is 
not a virtue, but a misfortune to be 
averted. 

The Republican party, with its half 
century of achievements in the cause 
of liberty, national unity, humanity, 
sound money, and of national and indi- 
vidual progress, should not be the polit- 
ical iconoclast of its own work. Its star 
of glory is not ready to set. Its banner 
of Protection should remain unfurled, 
inscribed: "Universal prosperity for 
America." [Loud applause.] 



Why Should the South Deprive Itself 
of Its Fair Share of Protection? 

From the Congressional Record of July so, 
1909- 
The CHAIRMAN. The request for 
unanimous consent has been stated, the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan 
to speak for five minutes, uninterrupted, 
on the subject of the telepost, and the 
request of the gentleman from Alabama 



to print in the Record an editorial. I3 
there objection? [After a pause.] The 
Chair hears none. 

The editorial referred to is as follows: 

Striking in the Tariff at Soutfiern Pros- 
perity. 

[From the Daily Bulletin of the Manu- 
facturers' Record, July 16, 1909.] 
If reports from Washington can be 
trusted, it looks as though the power of 
the administration is being used to force 
a reduction of the Tariff on the things 
which the South produces and which are 
erroneously called "raw materials" for 
the express benefit of the manufacturers 
of other sections. If this be true, then 
once more is the South to be sacrificed 
that others may prosper, unless Southern 
Representatives in the House and Senate, 
recognizing the situation, if necessary, 
throw aside political affiliations and 
stand united for an equal Protection to 
Southern interests as the Tariff will give 
to the interests of other sections. It is 
worse than folly for Southern Congress- 
men to pose as friends of the South and 
yet permit this section to be everlastingly 
used, as it has been for many years, for 
the benefit of other sections whose Rep- 
resentatives appreciate the importance of 
the development of their business inter- 
ests and unceasingly work to accomplish 
the best results. If we are to have any 
Tariff, why should it discriminate against 
the lumber and the iron ore and the coal 
and other products of the South which 
are used by other sections? There is no 
such thing as raw material after labor 
has touched it. The iron or^ and the 
coal and the lumber are just as much 
the product of labor as is the steel rail or 
the watch spring. There is no more rea- 
son why Protection should be granted to 
the manufacturer of textile machinery, ' 
steel rails, or any other product of fac- 
tory work than there is that Protection 
should be granted to the producer of ore 
and coal and lumber and hides and other 
materials of this character. If these 
things are to be put on the free list, then 
every product into the manufacture of 
which they enter should be put on the 
free list. Why should one industry be 
sacrificed for the benefit of another? Why 
should one section forever be made to pay 
the bill of furnishing its own materials 
without Tariff Protection to other sec- 
tions who are wise enough through their 
congressional Representatives to procure 
Protection for their interests? If it be 
the aim of the administration — and this 
we can not believe — to strike a hard blow 
at Southern prosperity, it can not do so 
more successfully than by forcing a re- 
duction of the Tariff on the things which 
the South produces, while leaving a Pro- 
tective Tariff on the things which other 
sections produce, and of which the South 
must be a buyer. The time has come for 
the Representatives of the South in Con- 
gress and the people of the South and the 
people of other sections who have in- 
vestments in the vSouth to enter a pro- 
test so strong and vigorous and fight so 
determinedly that regardless of party ties 
this section shall be saved from being 
sacrificed for the benefit of others. 



426 



MOORE. 



Pledges to the people of a downward 
revision of the Tariff may be kept by re- 
ducing the duties upon the products of 
the interests that are attempting to com- 
pel the abolition of duties upon iron ore, 
coal, and lumber which they desire to use 
in their industries, giving them their ma- 
terial cheaper, to the injury of Ameri- 
can producers of such material, without 
reducing the prices of the finished articles 
for American buyers. 

Downward revision must not be per- 
mitted to be worked for the purpose of 
paying campaign debts to certain great 
interests. 



"We Must Give and Take, and Work 
Together Under the Protective Sys- 
tem." 

From the Congressional Record of July 23, 
1909. 
J. HAMPTON MOORE, of Pennsylva- 
nia. Mr. Speaker, some of my con- 
stituents, who are consumers of farm 
products, have been complaining of the 
duties which Protect the farmer and en- 
able him to obtain a profit upon his toil. 
The following communication, which Is 
fairly explanatory, is one of twenty-five 
that have come to me in the course of 
two days: 

Philadelphia, July 21, 1909. 
Hon. J. Hampton Moore, Washington, 

Dear Sir: The heaviest burdens placed 
upon me as owner and operator of horses 
is their maintenance, the principal food 
being oats and hay. As a resident of 
the State and district you represent, J 
therefore ask you to use your vote and 
prestige in having the duty removed from 
oats and hay. 

Very truly, yours, 

Lewis L. Tilton. 

As every farmer knows, there is a 
duty to Protect both hay and oats. The 
men who complain of this duty are the 
residents of the congested centers of 
population; they are the consumers of 
the farmer's product; they are the men 
who buy not only the hay and the oats 
that some from the farm, but the beef, 
and the mutton, and the wool, the flour, 
the eggs, and the potatoes, and the va- 
rious other products of the orchard and 
the field. These men are of the vast 
urban population, whose income is de- 
rived from manufactories, warehouses, 
and other adjuncts of conmiercial and 
Industrial activity separate and distinct 
from the farm. They feel that they have 
been paying good prices for everything 
tliat has come out of the farm. They 
have felt the pressure of the prices of 
various agricultural products. They come 



from sections of the country which 
firmly believe in a Protective-Tariff sys- 
tem. Why do they ask to have the du- 
ties removed from products of the farm? 
Perhaps it is fair from the urban view- 
point to answer "because the farmer is 
highly Protected and is enabled by ex- 
cessive rates of duty to charge exorbi- 
tant prices for the necessaries of life, 
over which he has absolute control." 
Such an answer has a familiar sound as 
applied to manufactured products. It 
proves that a rule works two ways. 

I do not propose to discuss this ques- 
tion further. It is too late to have any 
serious effect upon the conference com- 
mittee, but since there are frequent 
rumblings from the great agricultural 
districts with regard to the prices farm- 
ers are presumed to pay for supplies 
they take from the mills, I have deemed 
It worth while to thus briefly present 
the other side of the question. It may 
not please the agitator, who delights in 
attempts to separate the farm from the 
factory, but it tends to show that the 
prosperity of the farmer which now 
reigns as it never has before would be 
seriously endangered if that same mea- 
sure of Protection which the farmer de- 
mands for his product is not accorded to 
the consumer. 

Recently in a short speech upon this 
floor I favored Protection because, if sci- 
entifically applied, It Is the best and 
least burdensome revenue producer we 
have, and when properly enforced by an 
honest and impartial administration, 
would aid and encourage every line of 
Industry, whether agricultural or manu- 
facturing, without resorting to those di- 
rect measures of taxation which have 
been discussed during the pendency of 
this bill, and which In the last analysis 
mean that the responsible and thrifty 
citizen, because he is doing a legitimate 
business and can be found, shall bear 
the heaviest burden, while the shirk and 
the Bchemer and the demagogue shall go 
scot-free. 

Let the farmer have a reasonable Pro- 
tection on his hay, his oats, his grain, 
his potatoes, and his eggs, but give that 
same consideration to his best customer 
of the store and the mill. We are inter- 
dependent in this country, and the clos- 
ing up of the mills could only result In 
a loss of purchasing power in the mar- 
ket of the farmer. We must give and 
take and work together under the Pro- 



I 



DiCIt. PAYNE. 



42t 



tectlve system, and there are assurances 
that we shall do so when this Tariff bill 
becomes a law. 



Free Hides and Free Iron Ore Con- 
trary to the Principle of Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of July 29, 
1909. 

CHARLES DICK, of Ohio. I present 
two telegrams in the nature of memo- 
rials, one from the president of the Chi- 
cago Live Stock Exchange, and the other 
from James M. Swank, of Philadelphia, 
Pa. They bear upon the important sub- 
ject of free hides and free iron ore. I 
ask that they be printed in the Record 
and referred to the Committee on 
Finance. 

There being no objection, the telegrams 
were referred to the Committee on 
Finance and ordered to be printed In 
the Record, as follows: 

Union Stock Yards, Chicago, 111., July 27, 

1909. 
Senator Charles Dick, Washington, D. C: 

The farmers and cattlemen of the 
whole country are indignant at the au- 
thors and promoters of a Tariff for 
everybody except the producers of hides. 
"We ask you to prevent the tragedy 
against common sense and justice. If free 
hides, then free leather goods. The 
ever-present spirit of fairness character- 
istic of the American people will justify 
your position. 

The Chicago Live Stock Exchange, 
J. W. Moore, President. 

Philadelphia, Pa., July 24, 1909. 
Hon. Charles Dick, United States Senate, 

Washington, D. C. : 

The national Republican platform last 
year said: "In all Tariff legislation the 
true principle of Protection is best main- 
tained by the imposition of such duties 
as will equal the difference between the 
cost of production at home and abroad, 
together with a reasonable profit to 
American industries." Would free iron 
ore maintain the difference in the cost of 
production between Cuba and the United 
States? 

James M. Swank. 



Statement of Changes Made in the 
Tariff Law by the Conference Re- 
port. 

From the Congressional Record of July 50, 
1909. 
SERENO E. PAYNE, of New York. 
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
extend remarks in the Record, and to 
Incorporate the statement of changes 
made in the Tariff law by conference 
reports on H. R. 1438. 



The SPEAKER. Is there objection to 
the request of the ge\itleman from New 
York? 

There was no objection. 

The matter referred to is as follows: 

Statement of Changes Made in tfie Tariff 
Law by tfie Conference Report on H. R. 
1438. 

Mr. Payne stated that he has had an 
Investigation made based on the last cen- 
sus returns of 1905, showing the amount 
of domestic consumption of articles upon 
which duties have been raised and also 
the articles upon which duties have been 
lowered by the bill as finally reported 
from the conference committee. This 
has been done because comparisons have 
been made based upon the amount of im- 
portations. 

Duties have been lowered where they 
were too high und^r the present law, 
sometimes prohibitive in character, and 
for that reason the importations were 
comparatively small. On the other hand, 
they have been raised in some instances 
where the Tariff was insufflcient for Pro- 
tection and the importations were very 
great. 



A Bill Which Meets the Full Re- 
quirements of the Republican Plat- 
form. 

Froyn the Congressional Record of July 31, 
1909. 
SERENO E. PAYNE, of New York. 
Mr. Speaker, in presenting this confer- 
ence report, I do it with confidence that 
it will be accepted by this House and 
that it will be accepted by the country 
at large as meeting the full requirements 
of the Republican platform, as meeting 
the pledges made by our candidate for 
President, of the United States [applause 
on the Republican side], and at the same 
time will not stop a single wheel of in- 
dustry, will close no factory, and will de- 
prive no man of labor at a decent, fair 
wage. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] 

Tfie Cotton Scfiedu/e. 

Your conferees desire to state that 
the various arguments presented against 
this schedule have been examined with 
care and analyzed in the light of truth, 
and most of them with which the coun- 
try has been circulated have been found 
to be without any warrant of fact. In 
almost all of these arguments rare and 
exceptional cases have been picked out 
and emphasized as the true effect of 
these cotton paragraphs, whereas in 
truth and fact, when they are examined 



428 



PAYNE. 



in the light of careful analysis and their 
probable application to importations of 
merchandise of that character, they are 
without any foundation of fact. 

"While there are increases in the rates 
of the paragraphs on lower-count goods, 
there are great reductions in other pro- 
visions of the law applicable to cotton 
goods, and your conferees are satisfied 
after a full and complete investigation 
that the result reached by the conference 
is a fair and just cotton schedule, one 
calculated to build up the cotton indus- 
try of the country and at the same time 
do justice to the consumers of the coun- 
try." 

Paper and Pulp Schedule Defended. 

If there was any item that absorbed 
more attention in debate than any other 
it was upon the paper question, the 
question of the rate of duty. We did 
not want to shut up any paper mills in 
the United States. We are not here for 
that purpose, no matter who demands 
it. We did not want to get an undue 
duty upon paper and wood pulp. We 
insisted that wood pulp should go on 
the free list; and that was conceded. We 
offered a compromise finally upon paper 
of $3 a ton instead of $2. It could not 
be accepted. Then we inquired why it 
was. We made that inquiry before we 
adopted the raise of the duty. They 
claimed that the Mann report, which 
gave the $2 duty upon paper, was based 
on the claim that it was the difference in 
cost at the factory in the United States 
and in Canada. I do not know that I 
state that exactly correct, but that was 
their claim substantially. They claimed 
that he had left out of the calculation 
the difference in the cost of pulp wood 
at either factory. They produced a good 
deal of evidence going to show that the 
pulp wood on an average in the factories 
of the United States cost $4 per ton 
more than in the Canadian factories. A 
fair average would carry it beyond the 
$2 a ton. Well, now, Mr. Speaker, we 
had before us Senator Frye, of Maine, 
who had a good deal of personal knowl- 
edge and information on the subject, in 
addition to the evidence they had pre- 
sented; and at the suggestion of the gen- 
tleman from Illinois [Mr. Boutell] and 
myself we sent for the gentleman from 
Illinois, the chairman of the committe.e 
of Investigation, and heard him before 
the committee, and I got the idea from 
what he stated that the low rate of duty 



of $2 upon paper was largely for the ef- 
fect that it would have upon the Cana- 
dian government in giving us free wood. 
We held out until the last thing, and 
finally we put on a duty of $3.75 a ton, 
the best concession that we could get 
and still bring a report into the House. 
I want to say to gentlemen who are here, 
as a Protectionist and as a Republican, 
I do not think that any Protectionist can 
make a good argument against the rate 
we have proposed upon print paper of 
$3.75 a ton. So we bring it to the House 
in that way. 

Another subject involving much debate 
was coal. The House had left the duty 
at 67 cents a ton on bituminous coal, 
with the provision that it should be free 
from a country that gave us free en- 
trance upon bituminous coal. Well, it 
is useless to say or to deny the fact that 
many gentlemen in the other House and 
many gentlemen in this House were very 
much opposed to any possibility of free 
reciprocal coal between the United States 
and Canada; most of them without rea- 
son as to their locality, and some for 
more reason because of their locality, op- 
pose any such rate as that. 

Tariff on CoaL 

We considered that. Finally we got 
down to where we could agree upofi a 
straight rate of 45 cents a ton without 
any provision for reciprocity, but reduc- 
ing the rate from 67 cents to 45 cents. 
And so the committee have adopted their 
report, fixing that rate at 45 cents. From 
what I can learn of the attitude of 
Canada, I believe that that is a lower 
rate than would have resulted from the 
House reciprocity provision, because I 
understand that when Mr. Root was 
Secretary of State he attempted in vain 
to get any kind of an agreement with 
Canada that he proposed for reciprocal 
free coal; and if they would not do it 
then, I do not think they would have 
done it under our bill. And so I would 
like to say to my colleague, who was 
shouting so loudly a few minutes ago and 
who appears to have disappeared, that 
this necessity of- life, bituminous coal, 
has been cut a third of the duty upon 
this bill, and it comes in here at 45 
cents a ton instead of 67 cents. 

Iron, Steel, and Iron Ore. 

Then we got down to the iron and 
steel schedule. The House had made 
iron ore free. The Senate had put on a 



» 



PAYNE. 



429 



duty of 2o cents a ton. The present law 
is 40 cents a ton. They were strenuous 
about that. They wanted the full Senate 
rate. Some of them went so far as to 
say the industry would be ruined out In 
the Rocky Mountains if we let in free 
iron ore and free coal from Cuba on the 
Atlantic border, or let it in at anything 
less than 25 cents a ton. 

Your conferees followed the judgment 
of the House, and asked for free iron ore. 
At last we compromised on a duty of 15 
cents a ton on iron ore. We were all 
the more moved to stick, because we had 
so cut the rate on every product of the 
Iron mill that the people along the At- 
lantic seaboard were entitled to consid- 
eration in the matter of the iron ore that 
goes into their finished product. We 
stood by them, to encourage their Indus- 
try and let it not be wiped out by 
stronger competition of combinations of 
capital which own their own ore and 
bring it to Pittsburg from the Western 
mines. We were dealing out equity and 
Justice to those people, giving them a 
fair chance for their lives, when we had' 
reduced their pig iron from $4 to $2.50, 
and in many cases had cut the duties 
on their finished products 50 per cent or 
even more. So the report of the com- 
mittee was for 15 cents a ton on iron ore, 
and I do not believe that the duty of 
15 cents a ton will stop" a single pick In 
any mine in the United States. If It 
would hurt anybody, it would hurt the 
mine owners in my own State; and I 
happen to know that it will not hurt 
them even to have free ore. It can not 
hurt anything west of the Allegheny 
Mountains. It can hurt no industry. On 
the other hand, it will keep the shops 
east of the Alleghenies running on full 
time, because they will not have to sub- 
mit to undue exactions from ore coming 
from west of the Allegheny Mountains. 

Three Hems Increased. 

Now, we increased three items, accord- 
ing to my recollection, in all of the great 
iron and steel schedule. On structural 
iron or steel we made an increase on the 
fabricated article. We made no increase 
upon what has been coming in here, but 
a decrease. The unfinished structural 
steel has been coming in under the Ding- 
ley law. We decreased that by 1 to 
two-tenths of a cent per pound, but we 
put that which was fabricated into an- 
other class. I was surprised to learn, 
after I became a conferee, that the fabri- 



cation is done in another shop and is a 
distinct industry from the rolling, ham- 
mering, or forging. Even the United 
States Steel Company has a plant for fab- 
rication, which is separated from its forg- 
ing plant by from 20 to 25 miles, and 
we have these large fabricating works 
in many cities of the United States, and 
the industry is a great one. 

Recently, under the depression of times 
which affected not only us but Germany 
as well, they have been bringing in some 
of this fabricated structural steel. In the 
case of one building even the door frames 
and window frames were completed and 
brought in, adding an expense of almost 
one-half to the cost of the original struc- 
tural steel. After I found out the facts 
I was willing to concede that to the Sen- 
ate and to the Senate conferees. 

Then on high-speed steel of the highest 
class we made one or two new brackets, 
increasing the rate. This is something 
new since the enactment of the Dingley 
law. It is wonderful development in mod- 
ern steel making, and by this process 
we are turning out steel of wonderful- 
character, to be used where the very 
highest class comes in. And they are 
getting the higher speed into the article, 
way up beyond what it was a month 
ago, and it seemed necessary that on this 
high class there should be a little addi- 
tion to the rate. 

Duty on Barbed Wire Reduced. 

Barbed fence wire has a present duty 
of 2 cents, and the Senate proposed three- 
quarters of a cent, and we granted a re- 
duction to three-quarters of a cent per 
pound. I only speak of that as a single 
Item because time will not permit, and it 
Is too hot if it would, for me to go into 
much detail about these things. I will 
show you what is the general result of 
the reduction on the different schedules 
by and by. 

Tariff on Hides, Boots, and Shoes. 

Then there was the hides of cattle. 
We were not all agreed on it here, but 
173 majority seemed to agree on free 
hides. We reduced the rates on boots and 
shoes and the products of hides and 
cattle In the House committee all that 
we thought it would bear. We made the 
rates on sole leather, reducing it from 
20 cents to 5 cents, and reduced It on 
shoes from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, 
and we reduced it on harnesses from 40 
per cent to 30 per cent, if I remember 



430 



PAYNE. 



right. Some of these gentlemen, who 
did not want free hides and brought up 
the impossible argument that if hides 
were free all the productions of those 
hides should be free, urged that on us. 
It was not logical. I am not going to 
repeat my arguments on free hides. If 
anyone doubts where I stand, he can 
turn to the Congressional Record, and 
there it is. But when you come to make 
a shoe, it is not all of leather. The 
cloth in the lining bears a high rate of 
duty. Very often the outward material 
bears a high rate of duty. It is a matter 
of labor and skill which goes into it. The 
Item of manufacture is a large part of 
it. I would not be for free hides if I 
supposed for a moment a duty Protected 
any American industry. I am not for 
free raw materials. I repudiate the doc- 
trine now as I have all my life. [Ap- 
plause on the Republican side.] But 
my idea is that we do not want to keep 
a duty on unnecessarily, either for sen- 
timent or anything else. I believe he Is 
an enemy to Protection who deliberately 
goes to work and puts on a Protective 
Tariff beyond all reason, nay, beyond 
Protection and necessary Protection for 
American labor [applause on the Repub- 
lican side] ; and when you apply that 
rule to hides, it puts them on the free 
list. 

What /s Raw Mater/a/? 

When you apply it to iron ore it puts 
it on the free list, and according to my 
doctrine it is not raw material. What 
is ra-w material? Iron ore? It Is the ore 
In the earth, buried, before a shovel- 
ful of dirt has been removed to uncover 
it. Is not the ore the finished product of 
the miner? I do not subscribe to any 
doctrine of free raw material, but repu- 
diate it. It has no place in my political 
theory, [Applause on the Republican 
Bide.] But we finally compromised on 
boots and shoes, and we went so far as 
to compromise by deliberately putting 
into the conference report something we 
did not have any right to do. We cut 
down the duty on belting leather and 
sole leather from 20 per cent to 5 per 
cent, just as we had reported it ip the 
bill, and we cut down the duty on shoes 
made of these hides from 25 per cent to 
10 per cent, and on harnesses from 40 
per cent to 20 per cent, believing that the 
House would sustain the rule to waive 
the point of order If left in the bill, and 
I have never seen the House so united 



in all my career in Congress as It was 
this morning in adopting that rule, both 
sides uniting by an almost unanimous 
vote In favor of it. 

Woof Tariff R9duced. 

We have not altered the wool schedule 
except to reduce three paragraphs — not 
much, but reduce them — and yet I un- 
derstand that all of the clothing mer- 
chants in the United States are adver- 
tising that because of the Increase in 
the rates on wool in both the House and 
Senate bills, which did not exist any- 
where, the price of clothing would go 
up 20 or 50 per cent after the bill was 
passed. Thank God, when we write this 
bill on the statute books it will remain 
there and its operation will be felt 
throughout all of this broad land for fif- 
teen months before the next election, and 
the people will have a chance to see what 
it does and the relief that it will bring, 
and know from their own experience 
what it has accomplished. 

Binding Twine and Cotton Bagging 

were put on the free list in the Wilson 
bill. We found out by experiment under 
the Wilson bill that binding twine, be- 
ing a very low order of manufacture, 
made almost exclusively by machinery 
and very little labor involved, could be 
made in this country In competition with 
the world, and we could continue to leave 
binding twine on the free list. We also 
found that the manufacture of jute for 
cotton bagging involved not only the 
spinning of the yarn, but a weaving of 
the cloth, and that free cotton bagging 
would close up the mills In the United 
States that were engaged in making it. 
When we came to form this bill, gen- 
tlemen representing these mills asked for 
an Increase from six-tenths of a cent a 
pound up to a cent, to Protect their in- 
dustry. There are three of those mills, 
employing thousands of men, In St. Louis. 
There is one in Massachusetts, In the 
district of Mr. Glllett. There are three 
or four in Brooklyn, in New York, my 
State, and others in the country, employ- 
ing many thousands of people; and free 
cotton bagging meant simply the closing 
of those mills, and so we did not put it 
on the free list. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the House had one 
plan of a maximum Tariff and the Senate 
had a plan of a general and minimum 
Tariff. The Senate provision was based 
upon the provision in the McKlnley bill 



PAYNE. 



431 



and In the DInerley bill, similar in their 
character, with more macninery to it and 
involving the whole law. The Commit- 
tee on Ways and Means examined the 
subject, and there was presented to that 
committee by one of its members a pro- 
vision drawn after the McKlnley bill at 
the first meetings of the committee, but 
the committee accepted rather the propo- 
sition which was contained in the House 
bill. There is not a great deal of dif- 
ference in them in principle, although the 
process is somewhat reversed, but the 
object is to obtain fair trade relations by 
imposing a greater duty where we do not 
get fair trade relations, and bringing 
things in at a minimum duty where we 
do get them. That is the whole scheme 
of the bill. It Is necessary in these days 
of maximum and minimum Tariffs; it is 
necessary when one great country espe- 
cially mentions the United States in her 
Tariff law and says that certain conces- 
sions shall never be allowed to the 
United States; and it is time we were in 
the field, showing to these countries what 
we ought to have In this respect. 

The Equivalent Ad Valorem Reduced from 
42.55 to 41.58 Per Cent. 

Now, M» Speaker, a word about the 
effect of this bill. We have put upon 
wines and liquors additional rates that 
will bring in an increased revenue of 
over $4,000,000 annually. Some of the 
schedules will bring in a little more 
money than on the importations of 1907 
and some of them less; but taking all the 
schedules into consideration, on the 
goods brought in in 1907, and the net 
result is an Increase of revenue from 



customs of $3,673,926.45; so that, while 
the wine schedule brings in an additional 
revenue of $4,000,000, the reductions are 
so great In the other schedules that the 
balance makes a reduction even on this 
luxury; and the total increase in rev- 
enue on the various items of the bill Is 
only this sum of $3,673,000, so that the 
increase in the bill on the imported arti- 
cles are generally on the luxuries that 
are coming into the United States. The 
gentleman may stand upon the stump 
and shout that we are not reducing du- 
ties on this and that, tliat we have added 
to that, and so forth, but when they get 
the final report on the effect of this bill 
it will be a complete answer to all dema- 
goglsm of that kind, and the country will 
see that our increases of duty are almost 
a third of a million dollars less than the 
increase on the liquor coming into the 
United States. 

Gentlemen talk about equivalent ad va- 
lorem. The equivalent ad valorem for 
1907 under the Dlngley law was 42.55 per 
cent. Upon the same articles coming 
into the United States under this confer- 
ence report the equivalent ad valorem 
will be 41.58 per cent, a decrease of 
equivalent ad valorem of 1 per cent, even 
taking that basis of calculation. But, 
gentlemen, I submit that a fair basis was 
one suggested by a gentleman upon the 
other side, if I mistake not, based upon 
the consumption of the article in the 
United States. They have been declaim- 
ing that the duty added to the price. 
Take them on their own ground, and see 
what the result is under this bill reported 
by the conference committee. The result 
is as follows: 



432 



> 




o 


;5 


h 


^ 


o 


H 


TO 


TO 


p^ 


TO 


H^ 


^ 


u 


>A 


M 




H 




tf 


^ 


<J 


O 


O 


TO 




u 


Q 


i-t 


TO 


« 


<l 


<J 


H 




tf 




U 




H 




Q 




QQ 




S 




H 




P 




fi 















PAYNE. 












o 




■* 


N 




CO 


to 


Tj* 


ta 






N 




O 


t- 




"* 


in 


M 


M< 




ll 


00 




00 


CO 







00 


q 


-* 




ta 




iO 


©- 







rH 


c^ 


^'" 


c 


o 




t- 


00 




00 





e<j 





3 


s£ 


HI 




co_ 


^. 




CO 





CO 


00 






















13 


q| 


ri 




t-" 


tH 




'*- 


CO 


r- 




► 


T-l 




CO 


co 






CO 


■«*< 




1 




«9- 












^ 








• 












• 


















































O. 




to 


N 


o 


o 


to t- 






to 


3 




•^ 


CO 


(N 


in 


lO CO 






■* 


•d 


00 


t- 


CD 


05 


05 • CO 






rH 


m 


» S 


oT 


co" 


(O 


o' 


in o 






t-^ 


a 


4) tn 


05 


(N 


in 


t> 


CO CO 






M 


o 
O 


o 


■* 


en 


00 


q -.iH^ 






rH 


3 £ 

PS 


co- 


oo" 


rH 


CD- 


O 00 






ci 




co 


N 


N 


CO 


O 00 






M 






tH 


H 


m 


« Tjl 








«' 


o 


0> 


00 


t> 


O CO 


00 






9 


■* 


rH 


t- 




m CO 


t- 






rt 


CO 


CO 


kO 


Csl^ 


CO rH 


in 


























► 


tH 


CO 


o 


in 


C3J rH 


Tj4 






.^ 


CO 


00 


m 


Tl< 


M 05 


1-i 






^ 


00 


iH 


■* 


N 


00 t- 


CO 




























o, 


t-^ 


N 


00 


-i^- 




N 


CO 






H 


** 




■^ 


^ 




rj^ 










H 












tH 












t- 


in 


CO 


CO 


CO CO 


2S « 


CO 




II 


lO 


o 


in 


in 


^ o 


^ c^ 


T-t 




CO 


co- 


CO 
05 


in 

05 


N in 




CO 




t- 


co 


00 


M 


t- o 


5S 0= 


■«t< 




t- 


00 


OJ 


t> 


CO 00 


(N jr 


in 




"SS 


oo" 


lo" 


l> 


cl 


H 05- 


^j' "* 







2 '^ 


■* 


N 


t> 


(N 


w 


^ c«: 


N 




Pm 


^ 

*» 


H 


t4 


CO 


CO CO 


•>* 






1 


t- 


00 


CD 


CO 





>A in 


'<«< 




M 


O 


T»< 


00 


CD ^ 


S Oi 


t- 




"iS 


w 


rH 


CO 


05 


CO 


C^^ CO 







► 


eo 


oo" 


co- 


CD 


CD TjT 


2 ifi 


CO 




o 


en 


o 


05 


CO 


r-l a> 


00 CO 


QO 




N 


b-_^ 


O 


CO^ 


H t^ 


- "^^ ^. 




a 


co" 


'«'" 


O 


o> 








t- 


M 




a 


*» 




w 


H 






M 





■* 


CO 


c» 


t- 


q 


■*. 


m 


q 










cJ 


co" 


co- 


CD 


-* 


00 


in 


to 


b- 


■<*< 


q 


t- 










to" 


rH 


rH 


00 





00 





r- 


rH 




1-< 


00 


• 






•» 


00 


in 


Oi 


CO 





m 


CD 


c- 


\a 








CO 










t-* 


oo" 


00- 


10 


■* 


M 


M 


CO 


C5 


q 


■^ 


CO 










t-' 


t-^ 


OJ- 


"^ 




<o 


rH 









t-^ 









rH 


^ 




rH 


00 


'^ 




00 


t> 







N 


CO 


M 




rj<- 


CD- 


05 




rH 


00 


t- 




q 


t> 


q 




CO 


00" 


T^ 











9 


« 





rn t- 


1 


^5 


rH 


05 


CO 


rH 


rH 





q 


t-- 


^ 


©- 


in 





t> 


05 


CD 


T-H 


03 


q 


0^ 


00 


•0 


co- 


CD- 


^- 





0) 


05 


">1< 


00 


CO 







H 


00 





■t-i 










L. 






rH 


CD 


rt 








*» 










w 


rH 


CO 


"* 


CO 


u 


00 


00 


m 


tH 


T 





CD 


q 


rH 


s 


co- 


cl 





CO- 


s 


rn 


co 




CO 


• 






co- 


00 
in 


rH* 


a 




co 


« 





1 



^ «-; rt 



9 -o 






o "5 



0) 



I ^ a 



a 5 rt 

^ Cj 4) 

O W a 



a 2 






^ 



^1 a 

p. 14 



a 3 fc, ** 
Q a a> w 

a xJ 3 TJ 



1^ TO 



M p. 



(4 O 



rt :« 



CO (X| oa 



^«OQHhOW-HH,i^ JSZ 



PAYNE. 



433 



Consumption Value of Articles on Which 
Duties Have Been Increased and De- 
creased. 

The following table shows the consump- 
tion value of articles on which rates of 
duty have been increased and decreased 
in all cases where the amount of produc- 
tion can be ascertained: 



Of the above Increases the following 
are luxuries, being articles strictly of 
voluntary use: 

Schedule A. chemicals, Includ- 
ing perfumeries, pomades, 

and like articles $11,105,820 

Schedule H, wines and liquors. .462,001, 856 
Schedule L, silks 106,742,646 



Total $579,850,322 



Schedule. 

Chemicals, oils, paints 

Earths and earthenware 

Metals, and manufactures of . . . 

Lumber 

Sugar 

Tobacco. No change. 

Agricultural products 

Wines and liquors 

Cotton 

Flax, hemp, Jute 

Wool. No statistics ; no change. 

Silk 

Paper and pulp 

Sundries 



Duty decreased. 

$433,099,8-46 

128,423,732 

1.248,200,169 

566,870,950 

300,065,953 

483.430,637 



22.127,145 

7,947,566 

67,628,055 

1,719,428,069 



Total , $4,978,122,124 



Duty increased. 
$11,105,820 



11,432,255 
31,280,372 



4,380,043 

462,001,856 

41,622,024 

804.445 

106,742,646 

81,486,466 

101,656,598 

$852,512,525 



This leaves a balance of Increases 
which are not on articles of luxury of 
$272,662,203. 

[Loud applause.] 

I am thankful that this statement has 
gone all over the United States, and I 
tell you it will take pretty tall lying and 
it will have to travel fast to get ahead 
of the truth in this matter. [Laughter.] 

We have revised the Tariff and have 
taken off unnecessary duties, not all 
along the line, but in our revision of 
the Tariff we have revised the Tariff 
downward, and yet we have held the 
scales so evenly that we have done no 
injury to any workman In the United 
States, to any workshop in the United 
States, to any farm or any factory, to 
any mine or any citizen of the United 
States. 

The Dingley law duiing all its period of 
existence has provided ample revenue, 
and there is no doubt this law will do 
the same for another twelve years. Let 
us pass it, gentlemen on this side of the 
House. The duty is ours; the time has 
arrived. Vote against it if you want to 
drive your party into chaos; vote against 
it if you want eternal agitation about the 
Tariff. Go on and vote against It If you 
choose, but do not do that on the Idea 
that you are going back to the Ding- 
ley bill or the Dingley rates. 

That is a delusion; you will not get It, 
but you will get agitation instead. There 



will come in another bill one of these 
days, and in the meantime the wheels of 
Industry will stop, enterprise will be 
paralyzed; the country wall stand still or 
will move backward, and you will curse 
the day when you failed to go with the 
great majority of your party, almost all 
of them, your President having lent his 
approval to this bill, if you fail to stand 
in the hour of the country's need and of 
your party's need and vote against this 
bill. Let us pass it when the hour of 8 
o'clock arrives, and give courage and Joy 
and happiness to the people of the United 
States. Let us start the remaining Idle 
wheels of industry; let us put every man 
who wants to work at work; let us build 
up the happy homes in the United States 
as they will be, and they will bring the 
great paeans of their applause for your 
patriotism and statesmanship in meeting 
this emergency. [Loud and long-con- 
tinued applause on the Republican side.] 
Mr. LONGWORTH, of Ohio. I most 
heartily approve of the bill as I'eported 
by the conference committee, because I 
believe it to be a bill which does not de- 
part one iota from the true Republican 
theory of Protection, and because I be- 
lieve that it is a substantial revision 
downward. I am not one of those \\ho 
quibble about the meaning of the word 
"revision." I do not believe that to re- 
vise merely means to look over. I be- 
lieve that to revise means to take afflr- 



434 



PAYNE. CAMPBELL. 



mative action, and I believe that the 
promise of the Republican platform was 
to take affirmative action, and that in the 
direction of a revision downward. I 
sincerely trust that my colleagues upon 
this side who are not suited in every 
respect by this bill will be content to 
follow the leaders of the Republican party 
and not worship at the altars of the false 
gods either of excessive rates of Free- 
Trade. I thoroughly believe in 
Publicity in ifie Affairs of Corporations. 

I believe it will be a benefit, not only 
to the public at large, not only for the 
benefit of the small stockholders, but for 
the benefit of the corporations themselves. 
There is no question but that the dis- 
closures that were made some years ago 
of reckless dishonesty in the management 
of a few of the great corporations de- 
stroyed the confidence of the investing 
public, both here and abroad, in all cor- 
porations — a confidence which has not yet 
returned and which will not wholly re- 
turn until the public has some means of 
knowing what the affairs of these cor- 
porations really are. I believe that a 
reasonable publicity will cause millions 
of the public's money to come out of 
hiding and seek investment in corporate 
stock, and that floods of money will come 
to this country from foreign investors. 
I believe that incalculable benefit will 
come to the present stockholders because 
they will have a means of knowing 
whether a fair amount of the profit of the 
corporation in which they are interested 
finds its way into their hands or whether 
it is diverted, by the payment of unrea- 
sonable salaries to the officers of the cor- 
poration or in other ways, from its proper 
channels. I believe that the safest trib- 
unal before which any corporation can 
be judged is before the bar of public 
opinion, and that the reasonable publicity 
which this measure requires will show 
that corporations, no matter how big, 
will be fairly judged, and will show 
further that the vast majority of all the 
corporations of this country are. in fact, 
managed honestly, intelligently, and with 
due regard for the interests of the pub- 
lic. 

I believe that this measure is in line 
with the great progressive measures 
which have been enacted by the Repub- 
lican party in the past eight years for 
the supervision and regulation by the 
Government of corporate wealth, the ques- 
tion which, to my mind, together with thoi 



question of the conservation of our na- 
tional resources, overshadows all others 
in importance. I believe that in evolving 
and advocating the passage of this law 
that the President of the United States 
has redeemed in the fullest measure his 
pledge that he would, during his admin- 
istration proceed along the paths blocked 
out by his predecessor; that he would 
use every effort to bring to his policies 
their fullest fruition. [Applause.] 



Faith in the Broad Principles of the 
American Policy of Protection Hat 
Not Been Shaken. 

From the Congressional Record of July 31, 
1909. 

PHILIP PITT CAMPBELL, of Kansas. 
Mr. Speaker, during these months of 
interesting and sometimes heated discus- 
sion my faith in the broad principles of 
the A«ierican policy of Protection has 
not been shaken. If we would maintain 
American standards of living, we must 
maintain the Protective policy of Ham- 
ilton, Clay, Blaine, and McKinley, as ad- 
vocated by the Republican party for more 
than half a century. 

It is manifestly fair that the importer 
of any article from a foreign country 
should pay a Tariff for the privilege of 
entering our market with it. In the first 
place, the foreigner maintains his in- 
dustry, employs his labor, pays his taxes, 
and supports government outside of the 
United States. The foreign manufacturer 
does not pay in any country more than 
one-half the wages that is paid to labor 
in the United States, and in some in- 
stances the wages are as low as one- 
tenth of the wages paid in the United 
States. 

It is plain, therefore, that if we open 
our ports to a freer trade, we declare, 
to that extent, for the "open shop" in 
the United States, which will result In 
closing our industries or lowering our 
scale of wages and standard of living 
to the level of the wages and standard 
of living of the countries with whose 
products we compete. 

No New Arguments in Favor of Free- 
Trade. 

In all these months of discussion I 
have heard no new arguments urged in 
favor of Free-Trade that have not been 
used for three-quartecs of a century by 



CAMPBELL. 



435 



opponents of the polica' of Protection 
and the advocates of Free-Trade every- 
where. Those who have spoken in be- 
half of the importer and of the right 
of foreign products to enter our markets 
at more favorable rates to the foreign 
producer, whether they have been new 
recruits or old warriors against the pol- 
icy of Protection, have used the old 
weapons that have been used against 
Protection through all the years since its 
establishment and maintenance in the 
United States. 

The declaration that imposing a Tariff 
on a foreign product imported into the 
United States that comes into competi- 
tion with a like product produced in 
the United States increases the cost of 
the American article to the American 
consumer is not true and is denied by 
the results that have followed the levy- 
ing of duties and the creation and main- 
tenance of industries in this country. 

Prices Reduced as the Result of Protec- 
ffon. 

I have examined the Statistical Ab- 
stract of the United States from the year 
1840 down to the present year, and find 
that the wholesale prices of the prin- 
cipal manufactured staple commodities 
entering into general use have been 
greatly reduced in price rather than In- 
creased, as a result of establishing in- 
dustries under a Protective Tariff in our 
own country. 

Let me cite a few items to ilustrate: 
English white stone plates, 7 Inches 
across, sold in 1870 for SYz cents each, 
wholesale. In 1908 American plates of 
the same size and quality sold for 4% 
cents each. 

Tin plate, made In Wales, sold here In 
1890, at wholesale, per box of 108 pounds, 
at $6.75; in 1908, American tin plate, same 
grade and quality, for $3.75. 

Manchester gingham, in 1860, sold here 
for 16 cents per yard; in 1908, American 
gingham sold for 5 cents per yard. Flan- 
nels, In 1880, sold for 50 cents per yard; 
In 1908, for 46 cents per yard. Half- 
gallon glass pitchers, made In Belgium, 
sold here in 1860 for $8 per dozen, and 
In 1908, our own, made In protected 
glass factories, sold at 96 cents per 
dozen, and glass is one of the most highly 
Protected industries in the United States. 
The price of all glass products, Includ- 
ing window glass, has been reduced more 
than one-half under a Protective Tariff. 



Ca/ico, in 1870, 18 Cents Per Yard; in 
1908, 6y4. Cents Per Yard. 

Calico, In 1870, sold at 18 cents per 
yard; in 1908, at 5^4 cents per yard. 
Print cloths, in 1870, sold at 7% cents 
per yard; in 1908, at ZYz cents per yard. 
Women's solid-grain leather shoes, in 
1870, sold, wholesale, at $1,371/^ per pair, 
and In 1908 at 96% cents per pair. Shef- 
field knives and forks sold in 1870 at $18 
per gross; American knives and forks of 
the same grade sold in 1908 at $5.41 per 
gross. Shirtings, in 1870, sold for 17 cents 
per yard, and in 1908 at 8% cents per 
yard. All these are wholesale prices. 

These reductions have been made to 
the American consumer in the prices of 
these manufactured articles of general 
consumption by levying Protective duties 
and establishing industries in our own 
country that have supplied us with these 
commodities, and on all these items the 
duties have been high and are high to- 
day, and yet the price of all these ar- 
ticles, and many others that could be 
named, has been cheapened under and by 
a Protective Tariff. 

German and American Hose. 

There has been a great deal said about 
the increased cost of ladies' hose. I 
stepped into a store this morning on the 
way to the Capitol and purchased two 
pairs — one of German manufacture and 
one of our own manufacture. They are 
of the same grade and quality. Mem- 
bers sitting near me here have difficulty 
in telling which is the German and 
which is the American hose. I paid 50 
cents for the German hose and 35 cents 
for the American hose. The dealer from 
whom I purchased these Informed me that 
when he began doing business in Wash- 
ington thirty years ago, he sold few but 
foreign hose, and that they ranged from 
85 cents to $1.25 per pair for the same 
grades that I have here. We reduce the 
price of our own products by the skill 
of our labor, the improvement of machin- 
ery and the large quantity we produce and 
consume among ourselves. 

Relation of Producer and Consumer. 

Why, Mr. Speaker, our people are, with 
rare exceptions, all producers as well as 
consumers. Some produce farm products, 
some mill, some factory, and some mine 
products; and others transport and dis- 
tribute the products of all these, who are 
alike producers and consumers. If the 



436 



CAMPBELL. MARTIN. 



farmer must take a low price for his 
product, he can not pay a high price for 
factory and mine products, and he will 
not stimulate transportation and distri- 
bution and activity in industry. 

If the workmen in the factory, the mill, 
and mine get low wages, they can not pay 
high prices for the products of the farm; 
and when there is inactivity in all these 
branches of industry, transportation and 
distribution are dull and do not afford 
profitable employment and wages to those 
engaged in transportation and distribu- 
tion; and when all these, in turn, are 
unable to buy the products of the farm, 
the factory, the mill, and the mine, at 
fair prices, there is industrial depression 
and hard times for everybody. 

When we speak, therefore, of producers, 
we speak of all our people. When we 
speak of consumers, we speak of all our 
people. They are both producers and con- 
sumers, and each must enjoy prosperity 
in his industry in order that the country 
may prosper as a whole. 

All our people must enjoy prosperity to- 
gether or puffer adversity together. 

Where Cloihes Are Cheap People Go Al- 
most Naked. 

There is as a rule small pay for work, 
a cheap man, a cheap home, a low stand- 
ard of living, and a cheap country behind 
cheap products of labor. 

I have been in countries where a suit of 
clothes such as were commonly worn 
there could be purchased for 90 cents, but 
men and women alike were almost naked, 
and children wore no clothes. It was a 
cheap country. Everything was cheap, 
but no one had anything with which to 
buy. Where I have seen everything the 
cheapest is where I have seen the people 
the least able to buy. 

If we supply our wants from the output 
of foreign mines, mills, and factories, we 
to that extent close our own industries 
and throw our own labor out of employ- 
ment. 

My deep concern in the preparation of 
this bill has been to have it so framed 
that when the business of the country is 
adjusted to its provisions not one Ameri- 
can workingman shall be without work 
at the American scale of wages, and every 
dollar of our money shall be profitably 
employed. Thus there will be prosperity 
In every field of industry and in every 
mart of trade. 



Best Piece of Tariff Legislation Ever 
Put Upon the American Statute 
Books. 

Prom the Congressional Record of July 31, 
1909. 
EBEN W. MARTIN, of South Dakota. 
If before this debate began there was any 
doubt as to whether or not this is a gen- 
uine Tariff revision downward, that doubt 
has been entirely dissipated by this dis- 
cussion. I think the leader of the minor- 
ity could obtain the unqualified certificate 
of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Malby] who to-day addressed this House, 
that the Tariff rates on the industries in 
his district have been revised downward. 
For one I can testify that the duty on 
hides has been revised downward. I sin- 
cerely hope that hides have not been re- 
vised down and out. 

But if there were still any question as 
to whether the general conclusions of this 
revision were upward or downward, that 
doubt has been further settled by the fig- 
ures presented here by the versatile and 
companionable leader of the minority, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clark], 
who, after passing over to us the trite 
and ancient saw that "liars will figure," 
immediately proceeded. to make some fig- 
ures on his own account. His conclusion 
is that the general result of this effort 
at Tariff revision is a revision downward 
of ninety-seven one-hundredths of 1 per 
cent. Small favors are thankfully re- 
ceived. His rate is rather small, but it 
is in the right direction. The demonstra- 
tion of figures is always mathematical 
and conclusive, but much depends as to 
the significance of those figures upon 
what is the basis upon which they start. 
I apprehend if our friends of the Demo- 
cratic party will be a little more im- 
partial in the basis of their ' figuring 
and a little more thorough in carrying 
their figures out, they will be able to 
discover that as to the important neces- 
saries of American commerce and of 
American consumption the rate of down- 
ward revision has been considerably 
more than that indicated In the state- 
ment of the leader of the minority. 

Mr. Speaker, there are inevitable In- 
equalities in all Tariff legislation. There 
are some items in this bill which, if 
I could have the entire control and shap- 
ing of them, would be entirely different 
from what they are. I can say, how- 
ever, that there are very few, I can- 



MARTIN. IIOLLIXGSWORTII. HILL. TAWNEY. 4S7 

didly believe that this same Tariff bill Tariff on Hosiery Lower Than Under 

will go upon our statute books and start ^. Wilson I 

our industries anew, and that it will be wnson Law. 

the best piece of Tariff legislation that ^''^"^ ^'^^ Congressional Record of August z, 

has ever been put upon the American ipop. 

statute books. There are not in this EBENEZER J. HILL, of Connecticut. 

whole list of revised items more than The gentleman seems to bear father 

two or three the inequality or the doubt- hardly upon the hosiery schedule. I wish 

ful character of which are such that I to submit as a perfectly fair proposl- 

care to refer to them in a discussion of tion that under the Wilson bill common 

this kind. hosiery had a duty of 30 per cent, and 

under this bill it is 30 per cent ad valo- 

-. .,,. _ rem, precisely the same as under the 

Unwilling to Trust the Democratic Wilson bill, and the duty on fine hosiery 

Party with the Business Interests was 50 per cent ad valorem, and here 

of the Country. ^^^ ^^^ specific duty of 50 cents and a 

„ ., ^ ■ , r, J r A ^"^y °^ ^5 P®^ c^^t- Now, then, cotton 

From the Congressional Record of August 2, ^o-day is worth 121/2 cents, is it not? 

^'^^' It was worth in 1895, when the Wilson 

DAVID A. HOLLINGSWORTH, of bill was in operation, 7 cents. Your Wil- 

Ohio. I am unwilling to trust the son bill duty of 50 per cent, if continued 

Democratic party in any way with the *° ^^^ present time, would be higher 

, . . ^ . ^ ^r- X T^ VsxKn. what you condemn now in the 

busmess mterests of the country. Ex- hosiery schedule. 

perience has shown its folly and its dan- 

ger. The results of the Wilson-Gorman r' .<-..» ^ — 

Enormous Growth of Our Foreien 

act are too recent to be forgotten. The »i-. . . t j w-. . 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . , .^ ^ Trade Under Protection. 
Free-Trade tendencies of the Democratic 

From the Congressional Record of August 2 

party are alarming to conservatives. ' &■"■'! 

1909' 

Here and there during the consideration j^j^^g ^ TAWNEY, of Minnesota, 
of this measure, a Democratic Member, 

from confessedly selfish motives, has ^^- Chairman, I will insert in the Rec- 

manifested a disposition to break away ord, in this connection, the letter of the 

from the old "Tariff for revenue only" Secretary of State giving full informa- 

heresy of his party, but the exception ^ion regarding the necessity for that 

only proves the rule. The leopard does $ioO,000 appropriation, 
not change its spots, although some of 

them may grow hoary and dim with .^^^ ^'^f^^}}:!].^ ^^'® importance and ex- 

^ :, . . „ \ r XV, T^ *^^^ °^ American commerce, investment 

age, and this is equally true of the Dem- and travel in foreign countries, and as 

ocratic party, especially in the consid- throwing some light upon the rate of in- 

eration of the Tariff question. It is ir- S'l^f,^,^ ''in'Li^'^f '^^ ^ possibilities of the 

., ^,, J; ^ , ^-, future, some of the following statistics 

reconcilably wrong. Even General Han- may be found suggestive: 

cock, who, when a candidate for the The population of the United States 

Presidency, sought to treat the Tariff Iho^^^^!\^'^v°^ outl.ying possessions other 

, f. . , ^ , . . than Alaska and Hawaii) has increased 

as a local question, found out his mis- from 58,680,000 in 1887 to 72 947 000 in 

take when it was too late to save his 1898. and to 87,189,000 in 1908. 

cause from utter collapse, too late to ^J^^^t f^^ll^^^^^ 7^^^^^..?^..^^® United 

,^^ r. ■ ■, V, ^ ^ ^ States increased from $6b, 000, 000, 000 in 

save himself from being laughed out of isgo to more than $100,000,000,000 at the 

the canvass. The line of cleavage be- present time. 

tween the two great political parties on ^^^^^^ ^f q^^ Foreign Trade 

the question of Protection to American ^ 

industries and American labor is clear ^, '•'^f ^f^^%?^. ^^^ ^°^^^ foreign trade of 

and well defined. It can not be disguised 5'^|s.^!;^*|M,'f 7/ ^Sown fn'=?he''?oHowln^ 

or mistaken. table: 

Y.aluc of merchandise. 

Fiscal year. Imports. Exports. Total. 

1887 $692,319,768 $716,183,211 $1,408,502 979 

1898 616,049.654 1.231,482,330 1,847,532.984 

1908 -. 1.194.341,792 1.860,773,346 3,055,115,138 



438 



TAWNEY. McCUMBER. 



It will be seen by the foregoing that 
our total trade in merchandise has in- 
creased from $1,408,000,000 in the fiscal 
year 1887 to $1,847,000,000 in 1898, and to 
the enormous valuation of $3,055,000,000 in 
1908. This last-mentioned figure repre- 
sents an increase over that for 1887 of 117 
per cent, and over 1898 of 65.4 per cent. 

It will also be observed that the total 
exports of merchandise have increased 
from $716,000,000 in 1887 to $1,231,000,000 
in 1898, and to $1,860,000,000 in 1908. This 
last valuation represents an increase over 
that for 1887 of 160 per cent, and over 
that for 1898 of 51 per cent. 

This wonderful growth in our export 
trade is illustrated by the per capita val- 
uation, which has increased from $11.98 in 
1887 to $16.59 in 1898 and to $21.04 in 
1908. 

A century ago agricultural products 
constituted about 80 per cent of our total 
exports to the world. In the last twenty 
years the share of manufactures in this 
export trade has steadily increased, and 
now amounts to more than 40 per cent. 
If we exclude partly prepared foodstuffs 
and consider only manufactures ready for 
consumption and manufactures for 
further use in manufacturing, the value 
of our exports of manufactures to the 
world, in 1887, was $149,150,329. or 21.21 
per cent of the whole; in 1898 it had in- 
creased to $324,527,921, or 26.81 per cent 
of the whole; and in 1908 to $750,575,841, 
or 40.91 per cent of the whole. 

Growth of Foreign Travel. 

The following table shows the depart- 
ures of passengers from the seaports of 
the United States for foreign countries in 
the fiscal years 1887, 1898, and 1908: 

1887 193,897 

1898 225,411 

1908 874,686 

It will be seen from the foregoing table 
that the outward passenger movement 
of the United States for 1908 represents 
an increase over that for 1887 of 351 per 
cent, and over that for 1898 of 288 per 
cent. 



Few Increases, and Those Mainly on 
Articles of Luxury; Many Reduc- 
tions, Almost Wholly on Articles 
of Necessity. 

From the Congressional Record of August j, 
1909. 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, of North 
Dakota. Mr. President, so little of truth 
and so much of falsehood has gone 
out to the country concerning the rates 
of duty imposed by this Tariff bill that 
I feel it appropriate now, as we are 
about to vote upon the adoption of the 
conference report, to present to the pub- 
lic a statement as concise as possible 
showing just what this Tariff revision 
means. 

Everywhere throughout the country we 



find a general belief that the revision of 
the Tariff all along the line has been an 
upward revision. No greater error could 
have been published. There have been 
very few raises, and those for the most 
part are on articles that are least pur- 
chased, articles of luxury. There have 
been very many reductions, and the re- 
ductions for the most part are on ar- 
ticles that are purchased generally and 
which could in no sense be declared 
luxuries. 

Those things which the great bulk of 
the people purchase generally are not 
luxuries. Those which only a small per- 
centage of the people can afford to pur- 
chase may be called by that name. Ap- 
plying this rule of division to reductions 
and increases, we will find that we have 
reduced the Tariff, on the basis of goods 
imported, to the amount of $4,951,813,175. 
The duties have been increased on goods 
amounting to $878,756,074. In other 
words, the reductions are five and two- 
thirds times greater than the increases 
on all goods, including luxuries. 

Most of these advances are on im- 
ported champagnes and other wines and 
liquors and other articles of luxury to 
the value of $637,903,549. 

Deducting the amount of wines and 
liquors and other luxuries gn which a 
raise has been had and which are pur- 
chased almost exclusively by the 
wealthy, who are able to pay the reve- 
nues, we have the following: 

Tariff decreases on goods 

amounting to $4,951,813,175 

Tariff increases on goods 

(other than liquors and 

luxuries) 240,852,525 

The decrease outside of champagne 
and other liquors and luxuries is twenty- 
one times greater than the increases, 
considering the value of the goods upon 
which the duties operate. 

These figures stand a clear refutation 
to the false claim that this Tariff bill 
is an increase instead of a reduction of 
duties on the bulk of the articles pur- 
chased by the American people. 

Wftere ihe Country Press Gets Its In- 
spiration. 

I shall not stop to show what is the 
moving force that is back of all of this 
erroneous literature which seeks to give 
to the public so much of the false and 
so little of the truth. We know gener- 
ally that the country press, for the most 
part, gets its information as well as its 



McCUMBER. KEIFER. 



439 



Inspiration from the great city press; 
that the press of the large cities is sup- 
ported by the heavy advertising of the 
great department stores and importers; 
that the department stores and impor- 
ters are always on the side of the low- 
est possible duties, and exercise their 
power and influence for ever greater re- 
ductions. Whether the great city press 
is actuated by the desire of those who 
furnish the advertising upon which its 
financial success depends, or influenced 
by the growing spirit of the day to as- 
sault everything rather than to present 
a fair, simple, and plain statement, is 
immaterial in this case. The fact re- 
mains that the public have been greatly 
misinformed as to the effect of this bill 
In increasing or reducing rates of duty. 
I am not saying that there may not be 
some items of duty which have not been 
brought down as low as possible consis- 
tent with proper Protection, but on the 
vast majority of things which are pur- 
chased by the people, outside of the 
woolen and cotton schedules, there has 
been a good, substantial reduction, and 
the cotton and woolen schedules are sub- 
stantially the same as in the old law. 

One-Sided Arguments. 

Most of the arguments made upon this 
bill on both sides of the Chamber have 
been one-sided arguments. They have 
been arguments which dealt with the ex- 
treme cases and not with the average 
cases. I have tried to avoid the ex- 
treme of either side of this Tariff ques- 
tion and to weigh matters from the judi- 
cial standpoint, rather than from the 
standpoint of an attorney representing 
either side. WTiile I am not satisfied 
with the bill because of the injustice in 
many instances against the agriculturist, 
I would be very far from the truth and 
very far from performing a just duty 
which I owe to the public and to my 
State if I did not present the good fea- 
tures of this bill, though I may criticise 
portions. They far outnumber and out- 
weigh those features which "are less fav- 
orable. 



Protection of One Industry at the 
Sacrifice of Another Is a Suicidal 
Policy. 

From the Congressional Record of August 4, 
1909. 
J. WARREN KEIFER, of Ohio. Pro- 



tection of one industry at the sacrifice of 
another or others is a suicfdal policy. 
Revision downward that does not in- 
crease the revenue of the Government or 
reduce prices to the consumers, or both, 
is demagogical deception. Protection by 
levying import duties has no justifica- 
tion unless in the end it secures in- 
creased and cheapened products. If Pro- 
tection depends on one industry, through 
Protection, destroying the prosperity of 
another or others, then we should wel- 
come Free-Trade, bad as it would prove 
to be. 

No Such Thing As Raw Material. 

The selfish manufacturer has seized on 
the phrase "raw material" to describe all 
materials which enter into his manu- 
factures, however great the cost of its 
production to the owner. 

Ores of all kinds while untouched in 
their natural state in the earth might 
be classed as raw material, though even 
in that state it may have cost the owner 
much extra for the land containing It 
and for a means of access to and egress 
from it. In any case, as soon as labor 
touches it the character of raw material 
leaves it, and forever. It then becomes 
in process of manufacture, and its value 
increases in proportion to the cost of the 
labor bestowed upon it. 

There is no sucla thing as raw material 
in the hands of its producer. It must be 
regarded as his finished product when 
he sells it. The manufacturer who buys 
and utilizes it to make his finished prod- 
uct is the consumer of it. 

The same principle applies to the rais- 
ers and owners of cattle, sheep, horses, 
and other domestic animals, and the in- 
cident products of them. The value of 
the land on which they are bred, raised, 
or fed, their prime cost, the value of the 
grass, hay, and grain they eat, the value 
of the skill and labor bestowed in their 
care, and the cost of transporting and 
the expense in marketing, the risk of 
loss by disease or accident, and still 
other things enter into their production. 
They are the farmer's finislied product. 
This being clear, there are still those 
who insist that the hide of an animal, 
at least, is raw material and should not 
be regarded of any value worth Protect- 
ing when the tanner or the leather mer- 
chant or the manufacturer of the prod- 
ucts of leather wants it. This view is 
too transparently selfish to have the ap- 
pearance of honesty. 



440 



KEIFER. McCALL. 



The reasoning to show that there Is a 
raw material not wortliy of Protection is 
ludicrous and sometimes laughable. The 
milk of the cow or the cream from it is, 
by the absurd rule, classed as raw ma- 
terial when used to make butter or 
cheese, yet it is classed as a finished 
product when a hungry boy drinks it. 
So meat and the like is raw material 
when purchased for use in canning, for 
making breakfast bacon, and the like, 
yet a finished product if bought for con- 
sumption on a table, unless its cooking 
constitutes it a finished manufactured 
product. But whatever you may call 
the farmer's beef animal, or any part of 
him, the fact remains that he is, in all 
his parts, the farmer's finished product. 

Danger from Pretended Friends. 

There is great danger that the policy 
of Protection is to be overthrown by its 
pretended friends, who, under the guise 
of Tariff revisionists or reformers, favor 
putting the other fellow's industry or 
product on the free list in their own in- 
terest and retaining on their own fin- 
ished products a high Protective duty. 

When the time comes — and such revi- 
sionists are rapidly hastening its com- 
ing — that we, in our efforts for Tariff 
revision, engage solely in a contest to 
see how well certain industries can be 
Protected and how many others can be 
put on the free list to prom.ote the Pro- 
tected ones, then the people of this 
country will welcome in preference ab- 
solutely Free-Trade in all things. 

Reduction of import duties is always 
proper when all American industries and 
all classes of our laborers are equitably 
treated, but if no duties are put or great 
reductions are made on some industries 
and increased duties are put on others, 
then revision will work injustice, the 
labor cheapened to the scale of Free- 
Trade times, and those who control the 
nonprotected industries will be destroyed, 
Protected industries only will be bene- 
fited, and they only for a brief time, as 
the universal depression in wages will 
soon so impoverish the whole country 
as to prevent a satisfactory market 
for Protected articles. 

When Protection Will Be Overthrown. 

The principle of high Protective du- 
ties on some things or industries and 
low or no duties on other and kindred 
things or industries, or parts thereof, 
Is un-American and destructive of the 



policy of Protection by Import duties. 

The selfishness of trying to Protect 
purely local American industries in 
certain parts only of our country, and 
at the same time provide these parts 
with duty-free imported material, or 
Protecting local interests on our coasts 
and fostering the people enjoying 
such interests in building up monopo- 
lies or trusts through free Imports, 
will, and should, if long attempted, 
overthrow the American policy of Pro- 
tection. 

When American Protection must be 
made to depend for success on a 
monopoly or trust being richly fos- 
tered by high Protective duties on Its 
products, and also by Free-Trade on 
the domestic product It feeds on, then 
universal Free-Trade, with all its dire- 
ful and calamitous conditions, should 
be welcomed, and it will be found 
preferable. 



The Most Effective Revision Down- 
ward Undertaken by any Tariff 
Bill Ever Presented to the Amer= 
ican Congress. 

From the Congressional Record of August 4, 
1909. 

SAMUEL W. McCALL, of Massachu- 
setts. It has been the contention of 
nobody that the bill before the House, 
was going to reduce the revenues at 
the custom-houses. On the other 
hand, we have had It in view to in- 
crease those revenues. If we had 
made the duties prohibitive, there 
would be no revenue, and by this 
method it would be argued that we 
had revised the Tariff downward. 

We might have brought in a bill 
founded on the English system, where 
upon five articles alone, counting 
liquor.s as one, they produce a reve- 
nue at the custom-house of more than 
$158,000,000. Multiply that by 2, which 
Is about the .ratio of our population to 
that of Great Britain, and we should 
produce over $317,000,000 upon those 
five articles. A Tariff bill like' that 
would be a Free-Trade Tariff; and yet. 
upon the theory of the gentleman's 
expert, we should have produced no 
downward revision of the Tariff, be- 
cause the revenues would not have 
boon decreased. 

It is said that this is not a revision 



Mc(.AlJ>. COLE. 



441 



downward. Why, it is impossible for 
any fair-minded man to tal<e . these 
schedules and to go through them 
from beginning to end and deny that 
it is the most effective revision down- 
ward undertaken by any Tariff bill 
ever presented to the American Con- 
gress. 

You can count on the figures of one 
hand in the chemical schedule the in- 
creases, if you leave out luxuries, 
while there is a v^^hole page of de- 
creases, and among them the great 
chemicals — sulphate of ammonia, which 
is put upon the free list, various 
forms of lead, various forms of potash 
— those chemicals that enter into man- 
ufacture and into the consumption of 
our people. 

And then take the iron and steel 
schedule. We begin by making a re- 
duction from 40 cents to 15 cents a 
ton in the duty upon iron ore. which 
lies at the basis of all manufactures 
of iron and steel. We reduced the 
duty upon pig iron, which is used by 
so many industries, from $4 to $2.50 
a ton. We reduced the duty on scrap 
iron from ?4 to $1 a ton. We cut in 
two the duty on steel rails. The steel 
schedule presents a reduction which 
amounts practically to cutting it in 
two. Yet we have adjusted these cuts 
to the conditions of the industry, and 
we believe that they will not result in 
harming any part of this country. The 
duty upon coal is cut 33 per cent. The 
duty upon petroleum and its products 
is removed altogether. 

And so it is throughout the whole 
bill. Take the duty upon hides. They 
have been upon the free list ever since 
we have been a nation, with the ex- 
ception of two or three intervals, and 
this bill places them there again. We 
do not believe that it will in any way 
affect the cattle-growing industry in 
this country; but the removal of the 
duty is far more than compensated 
for by the radical cut made in leather, 
in boots and shoes, in harness and 
saddlery. In these paragraphs the du- 
ties are practically cut in two. 

Meets the Views of President T^tft. 
Mr. Taft, when he was a candidate 
for the Presidency, took the people 
into his confidence and frankly an- 
nounced that if he were elected he 
would attempt to bring about a re- 



vision of the Tariff downward upon 
the lines of Protection. That policy 
beyond question is reflected in this bill. 
It is a great government measure. It 
is one of the most monumental meas- 
ures ever presented to an American 
Congress. It is a measure the passage 
of which is desired by a Republican 
President. It is the first great policy 
of his administration. I say to you it 
would be most damaging to him, it 
would be most damaging to the cause 
of a revision of the Tariff, either up 
or down, if enough Republicans with- 
held their votes from this measure to 
defeat it. It would, at the threshold of 
his administration, subject him to a 
damaging repulse, and it would keep 
alive agitation; it would keep uncer- 
taintj' hanging over business. 

If in a Tariff bill applying to some 
4,000 articles ev^ry duty must first be 
adjusted to please everybody, or, in- 
deed, anj'body, we should never have 
legislation. From necessity such a 
bill involves compromises. Some of 
the provisions of this bill, standing 
alone, I should vote against. But as a 
whole I believe it a righteous measure, 
and as such it will have my vote. We 
will have a conflict of forces, we will 
have disintegration and chaos, if the 
report is voted down; and in the in- 
terests of good legislation, and to put 
upon the statute books what I believe 
is, upon the whole, as good a Tariff 
law as was ever passed by the Amer- 
ican Congress, I appeal to the Mem- 
bers upon this side of the Chamber 
to give their votes in favor of the 
report. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] 



False Assertions of Clothing Manu- 
facturers Regarding the Effects of 
the Tariff on Wool and Woolens. 

From the Congressional Record of August 4, 
1909. 
RALPH D. COLE, of Ohio. Mr. 
speaker, no defense of the duty on 
wool provided in the proposed bill is 
necessary at this time. It has proved 
its value by producing ten years of 
great prosperity in the wool and 
woolen industry of the United States. 
During the discussion of the Dingley 
bill in 1897 Senator Dolliver, of Iowa, 
then a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means in the House, made 



442 



COLE. 



the following- statement In reference 
to this schedule: 

We propose to stop the slaughter of 
American flocks. That is the first thing. 
We propose to reopen the doors of the 
American factory. That is the second 
thing. We propose to put $40,000,000 
into the Treasury every year instead of 
$20,000,000. That is the third thing. 

Seldom in the history of leg-islation 
has a prophecy been so completely 
verified. Our flocks have been In- 
creased from 37,000,000 to 54,000,000. 
The production of wool has increased 
50,000,000 pounds annually. The value 
of our flocks has increased from $63,- 
000,000 to $211,000,000. These figures 
are proof conclusive that the first pre- 
diction Is now a matter of historical 
record. 

The maxim of McKlnley that "it Is 
better to open the mills of the United 
States to the labor of America than to 
open our mints to the silver of the 
world" finds full justification in the 
progress of woolen manufacture dur- 
ing the last decade. The second 
pledge has been redeemed. The in- 
crease in revenue under this schedule 
has approximated $20,000,000 annually. 
The prophecy of Senator Dolliver has 
been fulfilled, and the great purposes 
of the framers of that law have been 
achieved. 

Outrageous Misrepresentation. 

The National Association of Cloth- 
iers, In order to accomplish their pur- 
pose, have begun an advertising cam- 
paign proclaiming that the price of 
men's and boys' clothes will be in- 
creased from 25 to 35 per cent because 
of the enactment of the pending meas- 
ure. In their memorial they state 
that It will increase the cost of cloth- 
ing to the ultimate consumer in the 
United States at least $120,000,000 dur- 
ing the next year. I desire to have 
printed in the Record the following 
statement taken from their memorial 
which fully explains their position: 

These advanced prices on worsteds 
which have been announced, following 
the steady deterioration of fabrics in 
weight' and quality, resulting from the 
operations of the Dingley bill, will add 
to the retail price approximately $2.50 on 
a $10 suit of clothes, $3 on a $15 suit, and 
$5 on a $20 suit, or from 20 per cent to 
25 per cent to the cost of the clothing 
to the wearer thereof. 

The aggregate burden of the increased 
cost of men's and boys' clothing to the 
American people, under the present ad- 
vance alone, will be $120,000,000 for the 



year 1910, which is twice the value of the 
annual domestic wool clip. Although the 
bill has not yet actually become a law, 
yet it is clearly seen how it will operate, 
and the foregoing demonstrates the re- 
sults already apparent to actual manu- 
facturers of clothing. 

The first proposition that either the 
price of yarn or cloth or clothes will 
be increased by reason of this bill is 
absolutely false. 

There /s Not a Single Increase 

of any rate in this whole schedule 
over the rates provided in the Dingley 
law. On the contrary, two or three 
substantial reductions have been made. 
By what show of logic can it be said 
that the price of clothes will be in- 
creased when not a single rate has 
been raised and a few have been low- 
ered? If there is an increase in the 
cost of clothing it must find Its cause 
in some other fact. 

Let us examine the statement of the 
clothiers' association. They say that 
the price of a $10 suit will be in- 
creased $2.50, the price of a $12 suit 
will be increased $3, and the price of 
a $20 suit increased $5. 

Advance in Cost, $1 ; Advance in Price, $6. 

It requires about 3 1-3 yards of 
cloth to make the average suit of 
clothes. Three and one-third times 20 
cents is 66 2-3 cents. This should be 
the full measure of increase in the 
cost of a suit of clothes, because it 
represents the increase in the cost of 
the raw material, which is the only 
factor in the cost of construction dur- 
ing the last year. But we will exceed 
the limits of generosity and admit that 
the cloth which enters into a $20 suit 
of clothes has advanced $1 during the 
last j'ear. By what rule of right or 
process of logic can the National 
Clothiers' Association increase the cost 
of a suit of clothes $5 when there Is 
only $1 additional value In the cost 
of the raw material out of which It Is 
made? It is too apparent for con- 
cealment, that they are trying to en- 
rich themselves and charge the wool- 
grower with the responsibility for 
their action. I have given j'ou a com- 
putation showing the increase in the 
value of a suit of clothes because of 
the advanced price of wool. I now 
desire to submit absolute proof of my 
proposition. The woolen manufac- 
turers of the United States are only 






COLE. HALE. 



443 



charging the makers of clothing 50 
to 75 cents additional for sufficient 
cloth to make the average suit of 
clothes. 

Relation of Tariff to Cost and Selling 
Prices. 
Mr. Speaker, there is a popular mis- 
apprehension of the relation between 
the Tariff on wool and the cost of 
clothing. A duty of 11 cents per pound 
on wool would amount to less than $1 
on a $20 suit of clothes. The cost of 
cloth on an average is less than 25 
per cent of the price charged against 
the consumer. Good worsted cloth, 
which is at present the fashionable 
fabric, every fiber in it being pure new 
wool, for this season's wear has been 
selling at wholesale from the factory 
at ?1 per j^ard, so that enough cloth 
(3 1-3 yards iy2 yards wide) to make 
a full suit of clothes costs the cloth- 
ing maker but $3.33. A suit of clothes 
made from this cloth would sell at re- 
tail to the wearer at from $12 to $18; 
thus the total cost at wiiolesale from 
the mill of the cloth in a suit of 
ready-to-wear clothes averages less 
than 25 per cent of the price which 
the wearer pays for it. This relation 
of cloth to retail price for clothing 
applies also to better grades of cloth 
and clothing; say a 3-piece suit at $12 
— the cost of the cloth is about $3; a 
3-piece suit at $15 — the cost of the 
cloth is about $3.75; a 3-piece suit at 
$20 — the cost of the cloth is about $5; 
a 3-piece suit at $30 — the cost of the 
cloth is about $7.50; a 3-piece suit at 
$40 — the cost of the cloth is about $10; 
a 3-p,iece suit at $50 — the cost of the 
cloth is about $12.50; a 3-piece suit at 
$60 — the cost of the cloth is about $15. 

Who Gets the Increase in the Price of a 
Suit of Clothes? 

The National Clothiers' Association 
state that the price of cloth has in- 
creased 25 per cent, and therefore it 
Is necessary to increase the price of a 
suit of clothes 25 per cent. Admitting, 
as they must, that the only increase 
in cost Is the advance in the price of 
raw material, no method of computa- 
tion will sustain their contention. 
Three dollars is the cost of cloth In a 
$12 suit. Twenty-five per cent of $3 
is 75 cents. That should mark the in- 
crease in cost on a $12 suit. Instead 



of that the National Clothiers' Asso- 
ciation state that they will be com- 
pelled to increase the price of a $12 
suit to $15. Who gets the $2.25 not 
represented by the increased value of 
the cloth? 

The cost of cloth In a $20 suit of 
clothes is $5. Twenty-five per cent of 
$5 is $1.25. These figures should mark 
the extreme limit of advance In a $20 
suit of clothes. The association state 
that they will be compelled to in- 
crease the price of a $20 suit of clothes 
to $25. The public would like to know 
what becomes of the $3.75 not repre- 
sented by the Increased cost of the 
raw material. 

The Tariff Revision Pledge Redeemed. 

True to our traditions, the Congress 
has vindicated American character and 
risen to the demands of the emer- 
gency. Personal ambitions, partisan 
considerations, and sectional differ- 
ences have been submerged in the ex- 
alted resolution to write in public 
statute the people's will. While many 
schedules have occasioned impas- 
sioned controversy, the great principle 
of Protection underlying our commer- 
cial supremacy has been preserved. 
The pledges of the platform and of 
our candidate for the Presidency have 
been redeemed. There has been a 
substantial revision downward in the 
Interests of the American consumer. 
No American industry has been sacri- 
ficed in this measure. Ample Protec- 
tion is afforded for all legitimate pur- 
poses. Let the Tariff agitation cease. 
Let peace be within our walls and 
prosperity will be the heritage of our 
people. 



The American People Will Look 
with Marked Impatience on Any 
Project or Plan that Will Disturb 
Business Conditions. 

From the Congressional Record of August 4, 
1909. 
EUGENE HALE, of Maine. Mr. 
President, for the last two or three 
days I have been engrossed In the con- 
sideration of the very important 
urgent deficiency appropriation bill; I 
have been engaged in conference upon 
that bill, which has a great many pro- 
visions of marked and general impor- 
tance. This has kept me from the 



444 



HALE. 



Senate Chamber. I drifted in here a 
little while ago and found the dis- 
cussion proceeding upon the proposi- 
tion of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Beveridge] for a regularly organized 
Tariff commission. 

Mr. President, I look upon all dis- 
cussion at this stage as academic, and 
while interesting not profitable. The 
merit or the demerit of the Tariff bill, 
which I assume will soon become law, 
na man can forecast in its effect on 
the public. Whether it will be ac- 
cepted, whether prosperity will follow 
in its wake, and business will revive 
and labor be emploj^ed, and instead of 
men going about the streets unoccu- 
pied and clamorous they will be en- 
gaged in the different and diversified 
businesses of the country no man can 
tell. I can not tell. The Senator from 
Texas [Mr. Bailey], who faces me, and 
whose mind is constantly brought in 
attention to this matter, can not tell. 
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bever- 
idge], with all his power of forecast- 
ing and with his estimate of the tre- 
mendous progress that his ideas have 
made irf the last six months, can not 
tell about the future. 

But one thing is certain, Mr. Presi- 
dent, and that is that when this bill 
passes and is put to the test of public 
sentiment, and shall work out its own 
way, to its own credit or its own ruin, 
the American people for ten years, 
notwithstanding the declaration of the 
Senator from Indiana that everybody 
is for a Tariff commission, will look 
with marked impatience and will 
frown at any project or any plan or 
any tribunal that will disturb busi- 
ness conditions. 

The Foundation of the Opposition* 

That is the foundation of the objec- 
tion and the opposition that has been 
made and is being made and will be 
made to any tribunal that shall, when 
this matter is settled by the bill, in 
any form, by any authority, seek to 
open all the questions that the Tariff 
settles. That is the foundation of the 
objection and the opposition that is 
made to the revival of a Tariff com- 
mission. 

The bill must take its course. The 
bill must take its place with the 
American people, for good or for ill. 
I believe that it will be followed by 
9, revival of business, by an accepta- 



tion by the American people of its pro- 
visions, and that the murmuring and 
the discontent and the prophesyings 
of evil will die away in the course of 
the next year. 

But I have lived long enough, Mr. 
President, to know that I may be 
wholly wrong. It may be just the re- 
verse. If it is, it is not any Tariff 
commission that will settle this ques- 
tion in the future. It will be Con- 
gress that will settle it; it will be the 
House primarily and the Senate sec- 
ondarily; and no Tariff commission 
will add one ounce of weight to the 
deliberations of the two bodies which 
must at last settle all these questions. 

Did Not Cover the Scheme of a Tariff 
Commission. 

That is the foundation; that is at 
the bottom of the legislation which Is 
Incorporated in the Tariff bili. Lan- 
guage can not be plainer As it went 
to conference this was the language: 

To secure information to assist the 
President in the discharge of the duties 
imposed upon him by this section, and 
information which shall be useful to Con- 
gress in Tariff legislation 

Mark — 

and to the officers' of the' Government in 
the administration of the customs laws, 
the President is hereby authorized to em- 
ploy such persons as may be required to 
make thorough investigations and exami- 
nations into the production, commerce, 
and trade of the United States and for- 
eign countries, and all conditions affect- 
ing the same. 

Even with that language I entered 
my protest that it did not cover the 
scheme of a Tariff commission, and 
that if it did, with the unsettling re- 
sult of any Tariff commission, the con- 
stant' agitation, the constant keeping 
of the subject open before the Amer- 
ican people, I would not vote for it. 

But in conference that provision was 
revolutionized, and everything in it 
that contemplated either a Tariff com- 
mission or the keeping open of the 
subject-matter was deliberately, by the 
conference, stripped from its provi- 
sions and excluded. 

To secure information to .assist the 
President in the discharge of the duties 
imposed upon liim by this section, and 
information which will be useful to Con- 
gress in Tariff legislation 

Senator A id rich's Understanding. 

Mr. BEVERIDGE. It was in answer 



HALE. 



445 



to a question by the Senator from 
Nevada: 

Mr. ALDRICH. The inclusion of the 
words was a compromise between the 
two Houses. I will say to the Senator 
from Nevada, of course with due defer- 
ence to his judgment to the contrary, 
that the provision contained in the bill 
itself is even broader than it was in the 
Senate, in my jvidgment. It allows the 
President to employ whoever he pleases 
without limit and to assign such duties 
to them as he sees fit within the limita- 
tion of the maximum and minimum pro- 
visions and to assist the customs officers 
in the discharge of their duties. Now, 
these two purposes, especially the latter, 
cover every conceivable question that is 
covered bv Tariff legislation. 

Mr. NEWLANDS. May I ask the Sena- 
tor whether the provision as it comes 
from the conferees and is contained in 
the conference report will warrant the 
President in appointing men who will 
inquire into and ascertain the difference 
in the cost of production at home and 
abroad of the articles covered by the 
Tariff. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Unquestionably it will, 
for the reason that under the law, as it 
will pass in a few days, I hope, the home 
valuation as well as the foreign valuation 
of goods is a matter which has to be 
determined by the customs officers, and 
that involves^ of course, all collateral 
questions. I have no doubt myself that 
the provision as it now stands is, as I 
have already stated, even broader than 
the provision which passed the Senate. 

I thought the Senator would like to 
have me read that. 

Senator Hale Disagrees. 

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I am 
very glad to follow the Senator from 
Rhode Island. None of us in the con- 
duct and the management of this bill 
could have added anything to the dis- 
tinguished ability which that Senator 
has displayed on this floor. I realize 
that. But I do not, Mr. President, in 
the slightest degree agree with the 
proposition that this provision, as em- 
bodied as the result of the conferees' 
deliberation, is either a broadening of 
the original Senate proposition or is 
in any way committing Congress or 
the legislation embodied in the Tariff 
bill to that proposition. It is pre- 
cisely the reverse. You can have noth- 
ing that shows more clearly the intent 
of the provision than the striking out 
of the words "and information which 
shall be useful to Congress in Tariff 
legislation." That was not done un- 
advisedly; it was not done in the 
dark; it was not done With any doubt 
as to what its purpose was, 

But the Senate conferees found the 



House conferees a rock against any 
form not only of Tariff commission, 
but of any authority that should be 
given for any officer of the Govern- 
ment to keep this subject open. tThe 
intention was to dispose of it and set- 
tle it by the provision, and not only 
was that stricken out, but the other 
clause — 

What the Conference Committee Struck 
Out. 
To employ such persons as may be re- 
quired to make thorough investigations 
and examinations into the production, 
commerce, and trade of the United States 
and foreign countries, and all conditions 
affecting the same. 

Were the conferees blind and deaf? 
They certainly were not dumb, be- 
cause they expressed their views in 
striking out of the provision the au- 
thority to be given to the President 
to go into that subject-matter, and 
they limited the President in terms to 
this: 

To secure information to assist the 
President in the discharge of the duties 
imposed upon him by this section and 
the officers of the Government in the ad- 
ministration of the customs laws, the 
President is hereby authorized to employ 
such persons as may be required. 

Language can not give a more re- 
stricted scope to the authority on the 
part of the President under this pro- 
vision. "What is that authority, Mr. 
President? 

What /s the Business of the President 

under the maximum and minimum pro- 
vision? It is not to inquire into the 
condition of labor in other countries 
the relative cost of labor there and 
here. He is limited to an inquiry as 
to the discrimination that Is made by 
other countries against the United 
States. He so understands it. I un- 
derstand that he so understands it. I 
do not believe and I do not expect and 
I do not fear that the President would 
seek to amplify this authority. 

Mr. CLAY. With the Senator's per- 
mission, w^hile on that subject, as I 
understand the maximum and mini- 
mum feature of the bill, on the 31st 
day of March 25 per cent additional 
duties will be added to all the items 
In the bill unless the President of the 
United States should issue his procla- 
mation exempting the nations doing 
business with us from this increase. 

I presume the Senator is ^amiU?i,r 



446 



HALE. CLAY. GAMBLE. 



with the views of the President, and I 
presume it will be the President's in- 
tention to exempt all nations from the 
operation of this 25 per cent addi- 
tional taxation unless those nations 
actually discriminate against our 
country. 

Would Not Increase the Minimum Rate. 

Mr. HALE. That is true. 

Mr. CLAY. Otherwise the maximum 
rate would make the bill very much 
an increase over the existing law. I 
should think at least that the Presi- 
dent intends to exempt all the nations 
doing business with us from this taxa- 
tion unless they discriminate against 
us by their Tariff laws. 

Mr. HALE. The Senator has ex- 
pressed the whole scope and range of 
that proposition. It is not whether 
labor costs more in another country 
than in this country. It is not whether 
they have enormous rates of taxation. 
If they have the same rates of taxa- 
tion against us that they have against 
other countries and there is no dis- 
crimination, that is all the President 
Is to inquire into. If he were to send 
abroad men to take into account the 
conditions of labor and the cost of 
labor, there would never be any end. 
The President has nothing whatever 
to do with that subject. No matter 
how extreme a Tariff measure may be, 
no matter what the rate of labor may 
be, no matter how absurdly high the 
rate of another country is, if it is the 
same against us as it is against all the 
world, 

The Preisident Mas No Power Over That, 

and has no right to examine into it. 
He has nothing more to do with that 
question than the question of the cor- 
poration tax or the proud march of 
the waterways commission, which has 
captured the imagination of the Sen- 
ator from Nevada. He deals simply 
with the question under this provision 
of discrimination. Does not the Sen- 
ator from Texas [Mr. Bailey], who 
studies all these subjects, see just as 
plainly as I do that that Is the inten- 
tion? So it has become settled. 

I must express my absolute dis- 
sent from the interpretation the Sen- 
ator from Rhode Island has given, 
as just read by the Senator from 
Indiana. The committee did not in- 
tend that, Mr, President. The com- 



mittee used plain language, and it did 
not mean to use language that would 
be construed other than plain lan- 
guage. The committee was united, not 
only the House conferees, but all 
agreed to this proposition. 

When this subject came up, Mr. 
President, as it does in the urgent de- 
ficiency bill, I went over this whole 
question with the President as to his 
scope of duties. I showed to him that 
it was not intended to keep this sub- 
ject open, but to confine him to the 
question of discriminations, discrimi- 
nating duties and discriminating pro- 
cesses by other powers. In framing 
the language of the item of appropria- 
tion that gives the President the 
amount of money that he asked it has 
been confined strictly to the language 
I have recited as a part of the Tariff 
act. I have no fear the President will 
undertake to exceed that. I do not 
believe that he will. I am In favor of 
giving him money. 



Opportunities Given to Our People 
Through the Policy of Protection. 

From the Congressional Record of August 4, 
1909, 

ROBERT J. GAMBLE, of South Dako- 
ta. A policy that has done so much for 
our material development and In 
the accumulation of such surpassing 
wealth, and has brought such pros- 
perity to our people as a whole, should 
receive the most critical and pains- 
taking care in the matters now In 
hand that In no way our prosperity 
should be endangered or the bulwark 
of Protection broken down, but the 
system strengthened and fortified to 
Insure our future development and ac- 
complishments. 

I would not claim that our wonder- 
ful development and prosperity are 
alone due to the Protective policy of 
the Republican party. In my judg- 
ment, however, it has given the fullest 
and most enlarged opportunities to 
our own people to do their own work, 
to employ their own capital, to main- 
tain and preserve their own market, 
and not to suffer displacement In 
either in the world's competition. It 
has reserved to the American wage- 
earner unequaled opportunities and 
has Protected him against foreign 
competition and the lower level of 



GAMBLE. SCOTT. 



447 



wages and of living in other lands. 
Under any economic system our first 
concern should be the Protection of 
the home market. 

Our annual prodijction is enormous, 
and this system has Protected labor, 
given it employment at the highest 
rate of wages paid anywhere, and our 
consuming power not only of the raw 
but of the manufactured products far 
surpasses that of any other people. 
Our production for last year was sub- 
stantially as follows: 

Farm productions $8,000,000,000 

Mineral productions 2,000,000,000 

Forests and fisheries 1,000,000,000 

Manufactured products 15,000,000,000 

Total $26,000,000,000 

Of this enormous production, we 
consume practically 94 per cent, leav- 
ing only 6 per cent to be exported. 
Our home market therefore, represent- 
ing such a great aggregate, should 
have our first coneern and at all 
hazards should be Protected against 
undue foreign competition. In no way 
should the rates of duty be lowered 
that our foreign competitor may en- 
ter our market and take advantage of 
our own labor and imperil the invest- 
ment of our capital engaged in the 
production of our enormous manufac- 
tured product or in any -way endanger 
a system and condition that has 
brought about such marvelous results. 

The Republican Party Faithful to Its 
Pledge. 

The Republican party was intrusted 
by the country to do its dutj"^ in this 
particular. The country repudiated 
the promises of the opposition in the 
last national election and confided this 
supreme responsibility to a Repub- 
lican Congress and to their leader, 
the President of the United States. 

Had the bill failed then, or should 
it fall now, it occurs to me, there 
would be little hope of a successful 
solution of the question during the 
present Congress. I felt the wise 
course was to vote for the measure in 
the first instance, which meant passing 
it one step further on its course to 
completion, and that it should be 
thrown into conference. I believed as 
a result of the conference the bill 
would be made to more nearly meet 
the demands of the party and comply 
with the spirit and intent of the plat- 



form. As a result we have the com- 
pleted bill before us. It is supported 
by a large Republican majority. It 
has the approval of the President, who 
was the standard bearer of the party 
in the last campaign and is now its 
leader. He feels its provisions are In 
compliance with the party platform 
and the pledge he, as well as the 
party, made during the campaign that 
led to his triumphant election. To 
defeat the measure would disorganize 
the party, destroy the possibility of a 
successful administration, and over- 
whelm it in the first great measure 
the party has undertaken with the 
active co-operation and help of the 
President himself. 

Mr. President, the proposed measure 
in the different stages through which 
it has passed has received careful, 
painstaking, and patriotic considera- 
tion, involving as it does matters of 
such tremendous importance to the 
welfare and prosperity of our whole 
people that now as completed, I hope, 
gives expression to the party pledge 
and will meet as near as may be with 
the approval of the country, do justice 
to every interest, and bring prosperity 
and unmeasured development to our 
whole industrial and commercial life. 



26,000,000 Laboring Men in This 
Country Who Have Nothing but 
Their Labor to SelL 

From the Congressional Record of August 4, 
1909. 
NATHAN B. SCOTT, of West Vir- 
ginia. I suppose I am really what 
might now be called "an old-fashioned 
Protectionist." I have always be- 
lieved that the doctrines of the Re- 
publican party were that we should 
provide, through suitable revenue du- 
ties on imported articles, sufficient 
funds to pay the running expenses of 
the Government and to Protect the 
workingmen of this country against 
the poorer-paid labor of Europe. We 
have, Mr. President, 26,000,000 labor- 
ing men in this country who have 
nothing but their labor to sell. You 
might call it their "raw material," and 
I have always felt that it was the duty 
of those of us who are in a position tO 



448 



SCOTT. WARREN. 



make laws and legislate for the good 
of our country to do so in such a way 
as to give to these men of brawn the 
best market in which to sell their 
commodity; that is, their labor. In 
order to do this, Mr. President, I think 
it is our duty to keep out goods made 
by the cheap labor of Europe. In the 
reduction in the dvity on msiny articles 
in this bill I fear we have endangered 
the welfare of the laboring people of 
this country. 

If the principle of Protection is right 
— and I have always believed it was — 
then it is just as essential that I 
should vote for a duty on shoes or a 
duty on cutlery for those who manu- 
facture these articles in New Eng- 
land as it is for me to vote for a duty 
on coa:l, oil, lumber, and other com- 
modities in my State, My observa- 
tion has been that where the Gov- 
ernment of the United States has put 
a Protection upon a certain line of 
manufactured goods and has allowed 
the 'inventive genius of the American 
people and the mechanics to perfect 
machinery and lessen the cost of pro- 
duction, it has always resulted in the 
lowering of prices to the consumer. 
The fact that American machinery is 
being shipped to Japan to make shoes, 
the fact that cutters who are familiar 
with the styles and shape of the shoes 
made in this country have been sent 
to Germany, makes me fearful that in 
a few years the labor engaged in pro- 
ducing shoes will have to look for 
other occupations. The fact that we 
reduce the duty on iron ore will en- 
able the ore from Cuba and from 
Spain to come into this country, and 
the miner of iron ore in Michigan, 
Minnesota, and other States will be 
looking for work in other fields than 
those of ore mining. The reduction 
of the duty on lumber of all kinds, in 
my opinion, will compel those who are 
workirg in the forests of Washing- 
ton, West Virginia, and other States 
to go to Canada in order to find per- 
manent employment. 

It should be 

Our Duty as Good Americans and as Good 
Republicans 

to see to it that our fellow-man In 
this country, who has nothing but his 
labor to sell, should be given the 
highest market possible in which to 



sell it, in order that he might be able 
to better care for himself, his wife, 
and children. 

. ]\Ir. President, the true position in 
which to place oneself is that of the 
other man, and then we should ask 
ourselves if the conditions were re- 
versed what would we wish the other 
fellow to do for us? Those of us on 
the floor of the Senate of the United 
States may not have labor to sell, but 
we do have a responsibility to provide 
the best market for those who do 
have that commodity for sale. Have 
we done so? Each Senator must an- 
swer for himself. As for me, I have 
no apology to make for any vote I 
have cast on this bill. I accept it as 
the best we can get under the present 
circumstances. 

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, be- 
fore the Senator from West Virginia 
takes his seat, I want to ask him a 
question. There has been a great deal 
of talk and a great many statements 
in the newspapers about the demand 
for free raw material. It is said that 
there is such a growing demand that 
we ought to meet it and make raw 
materials free. I do not believe the 
Senator espouses that idea; but I 
should like an avowal from him 
whether he does or does not. 

Mr. SCOTT. I do not, sir. Most em- 
phatically I do not. There is no such 
thing as raw material. 



The Entering Wedge of the Doctrine 
of Free Raw Material. 

From tJie Congressional Record of August $, 
1909. 

FRANCIS E. WARREN, of Wyo- 
ming. Mr. President, although I am 
considered, perhaps, a high Protection- 
ist and "a regular" in favor of Re- 
publican measures, I find myself not 
an enthusiast indorser of this bill. It 
douliBess has many commendable 
features, but it carries a higher rate 
of Protection than I can indorse, in 
some particulars, a few of which I 
intend to mention, and it also tends 
to insert the entering wedge of the 
doctrine of free raw material. 

In other words, free raw material 
means the finished product of the 
farmer, if we may accept the term as 
given by the people of certain manu- 
facturing localities. The finished 



WARREN. ALDRICH. SMITH. 



449 



product of the farmer, such as wool, 
hides, or whatever it may be, whether 
It takes one year or three years to 
produce it, must be entirely stripped 
of all the benefits of either a Pro- 
tective or a revenue Tariff, while the 
manufacturer only takes the product 
along a few stages toward the con- 
sumer and may complete his opera- 
tions within a few weeks or a few 
months, because, in my opinion, what 
may be a finished product of one man- 
ufacturer is still raw material for 
another. 

While it may be raw material to 
the manufacturer, it is no less a fin- 
ished product of the farmer, as cloth, 
while it may be free raw material to 
the tailor, is yet the finished product 
of the manufacturer. 

This general onslaught and de- 
mand for free raw materials which 
comes from outside of this Chamber, 
and which has finally resulted in the 
farmer alone' furnishing the one sac- 
rifice, will plainly demonstrate to the 
farmer that this is but the entering 
wedge toward taking away from him 
every scintilla of Protection which the 
present laws afford him. 

The same may be said of the miner. 
There are millions of these sturdy 
men who are working beneath the 
ground who are directly affected with 
this shibboleth of free raw materials, 
which seems to be the newest fad in 
certain quarters. How long, I ask, 
can a Protective Tariff be maintained 
amongst these miners when this free- 
raw-material idea is pushed along and 
enlarged to take in coal and lead and 
other minerals? 

Mr. DICK. Mr. President, no State 
in the Union is more devoted to the 
policy of Protection than is Ohio. Ohio 
does not possess great herds; she does 
not mine iron ore; she does not have 
great forests of lumber; but she is 
against the policy of free raw ma- 
terials; she realizes that in the doc- 
trine of free raw materials lies 

The Greatest Menace to the Protective 
Policy. 

Our manufacturers, with few excep- 
tions, realize that free raw materials 
can bring but one ultimate result; and 
that Is free manufactures. 

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, I 
should like to ask the distinguished 



Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Al- 
drich], the chairman of the Commit- 
tee on Finance, whether this late doc- 
trine of free raw materials, which in 
certain quarters seems to be advanced 
and entertained, is one which he 
thinks the Republican party should 
accept and follow? 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I 
know of no Republicans and no Pro- 
tectionists who are in favor of the 
doctrine of free raw materials as un- 
derstood by Mr. Mills and Mr. Cleve- 
land and the gentlemen who were as- 
sociated with them in the promulga- 
tion of that doctrine. 

Mr. SMITH, of Michigan. Mr. Pres- 
ident, I think I understand the atti- 
tude of the Senator from Wyoming, 
but I make it distinctly and emphat- 
ically clear upon this point that it is 
perfectly idle for us to strike down 
the duty upon any manufactured 
product, in the making of which thou- 
sands of American citizens are em- 
ployed at good wages, and give to for- 
eigners, who maintain a higher Tariff 
than our own, an exclusive market for 
their products within their own coun- 
try, and give them an unrestricted op- 
portunity here. 

Mr. WARREN. And, Mr. President, 
It is just as idle and it is just as 
wicked and it is just as bad in every 
respect to strike down the workmen 
that are engaged with the farmer in 
raising certain supplies which go Into 
the manufacture of shoes. 

The Cost of Production Fallacy. 

Mr, SMITH, of Michigan. I have 
listened during this debate over and 
over again to the statement that we 
should have such Protection as would 
measure the difference between the 
cost of our products and the cost of 
European products. Why, Mr. Presi- 
dent, you would have to regulate and 
readjust your Tariff almost every 
twenty-four hours if you based it 
upon any such whimsical proposition 
as that. I took up last night the re- 
port, which is now in the hands of 
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr, Mc- 
Laurin], of the various boards of 
trade in Germany, and I find there Is 
just as much difference of opinion 
among the German boards of trade as 
to what it costs to produce an article 
there as there is difference of opinion 



WARREN. SCOTT. OALLINGER. JOHNSON. 



among our people as to what it costs 
to produce an article there. 

Mr. WARREN. I want to ask that 
stand-pat Republican, the junior Sen- 
ator from West Virginia [Mr. Scott], 
a question. There has been a great 
deal of talk and a great many state- 
ments in the newspapers about the 
demand for free raw material. It is 
said that there is such a growing de- 
mand that we ought to meet it and 
make raw materials free. I do not 
believe the Senator espouses that 
Idea; but I should like an avowal from 
him whether he does or does not. 

Mr. SCOTT. I do not, sir. Most em- 
phatically I do not. There is no such 
thing as raw material. 

Mr. WARREN. I see the veteran 
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Gallinger] in front of me. I only de- 
sire to ask him if he is ready to say 
that we ought to make the farmers' 
products "free raw materials?" 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, I 
did not intend to be drawn into this 
discussion at all. I am so completely 
saturated with the oratory of others 
that I thought I would keep quiet.. 
But I am pleased to answer the inter- 
rogatory of the Senator from Wyo- 
ming. 

For more than thirty years I have 
been, to the best of my ability, say- 
ing to the people of my State and 
some other States that the doctrine of 
free raw materials was 

>l Fallacy Which the Republican Party 
Could Not Afford to Adopt. 

Twenty-two years ago it was my 
privilege to make in the House of 
Representatives some observations on 
the Tariff, where I treated the sub- 
ject of raw materials to some extent, 
and fifteen years ago in this Chamber 
I spoke on the Tariff to a greater 
length possibly than I ought to have 
done, and I recall the fact that I made 
some mention of the free raw material 
doctrine in that speech. I chance to 
have that speech in my desk, and I 
will read one paragraph of what I 
said on that subject at that time. It 
was in these words: 

For several years they have been cry- 
ing for "free raw materials." 

Give us free raw materials and we will 
capture the markets of the world. 

They have, indeed, never been able to 
make it clear what they mean by raw 
materials. They apparently forget that 



the moment labor has been expended 
upon an article that moment it ceases to 
be raw material and becomes somebody's 
finished product. 

Wool is the farmer's finished product 
as soon as it is clipped from the sheep; 
but it is then the cloth manufacturer's 
raw material. When he has woven it 
into cloth, it is his finished product; but 
it is then the tailor's raw material. What 
then are raw materials? They are ma- 
terials just as we find them in nature, 
before any labor whatever has been ex- 
pended upon them^such as iron ore or 
coal in the mountain, or standing trees in 
the forest. 

Now, the Free-Trader wants all these, 
and similar articles, admitted free of- 
duty, and feels deeply aggrieved because 
they are subjected to a Protective duty 
when brought here. He evidently thinks 
it would be better to get his wool from 
South America or Australia; his coal from 
Nova Scotia; his lead from Mexico; his 
tin from Wales, etc., rather than, by the 
help of a Protective Tariff, develop these 
industries from our own native resources. 

The Protectionist believes the latter 
course much the better for our country, 
because it thereby develops our own re' 
sources, gives remunerative wages to our 
own workmen, affords fair returns to our 
own capital, and keeps in our own coun- 
try the money that would otherwise go 
abroad to pay for such materials and 
labor; and also because it prevents the 
reduction of the wages of our own work- 
ing people nearly or quite 50 per cent to 
the level of the cheap foreign labor. 

Mr. President, that answers the Sen- 
ator's question, and I will say to him 
that I stand by that doctrine to-day 
just as firmly as I stood by It fifteen 
years ago. 

As a Protectionist I voted against 
putting so-called raw materials on the 
free list during the consideration of 
this bill, and notwithstanding I was 
in opposition to a tremendous senti- 
ment in my own State, I voted to re- 
tain hides on the dutiable list, believ- 
ing that the Western farmers had a 
right to demand that at our hands. 



In the Last Democratic Tariff Re- 
vision Period Sheep Went Un« 
sheared for Four Years and Their 
Wool Was Two Feet Long. 

Frotn the Congressional Record of August S, 
ipop. 
MARTIN N. JOHNSON, of North Da- 
kota. Mr. President, the time for dis- 
cussion Is past, yet I do not feel like 
leaving the false standard erected by 
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Gore] as the last words said by which 
to test the Tariff law. The American 



JOHNSON. 



451 



people will test it by no such false 
standards. The Senator would have 
us believe that that test will be 
whether prices will be lower and 
wages lower next year. That is not 
the kind of a law we have passed. 

I remember very well when the Sen- 
ator's party was in power and passed 
a Tariff law for the deliberate pur- 
pose of making- things cheap. They 
succeeded, and we knew that they 
would succeed in doing that. 

There is something beyond that. 
The question is, Will it produce pros- 
perity and happiness? I remember 
seeing, when that law was in force, a 
carload of wool standing on the North- 
ern Pacific Railroad ready to ship. It 
was not put into the train for this rea- 
son: The Northern Pacific wanted 
somebody to pay the freight in ad- 
vance- or to guarantee the freight, 
because they were not sure that that 
wool would sell for enough in the 
market to pay the freight. 

The same thing was true at Dickin- 
son, in North Dakota. The Northern 
Pacific Railroad Company would not 
move a carload of sheep until the 
freight was paid in advance, because 
they were not sure that the sheep 
would sell for enough to pay the 
freight when they got to Chicago. 

When There Was No Market for Wool. 

The sheep owners in Arizona hired 
a lot of sheep-shearers, assuming that 
they could get money out of the wool 
when they got the sheep sheared, by 
trading with the commission mer- 
chants. They found that they could 
not draw on that wool, and there was 
riot and bloodshed among those sheep- 
shearers, because honest men, intend- 
ing to pay them, could not raise the 
money on the wool to pay for the 
shearing. 

There was other evidence before the 
House committee in 1897 proving that 
sheep had not been sheared for four 
years, and they had wool on them 2 
feet long. 

I know that in those years 200 men 
— good, honest men, glad to work and 
willing to work — applied at my back 
door, first for work and then for 
bread. I could not furnish them work, 
but supplied them with bread as far 
as I could. Wages were cheap and 
bread was cheap and wheat was 
cheap. 



We do not promise anything of that 
kind. The true test with the Amer- 
ican people in applying this law Is, 
Will it be easier to get bread, will It 
be easier to get woolen clothing, and 
will it be easier to get cotton cloth- 
ing? That Is the true test. 

The Lower the Tariff the Higher the Price. 

I want to take up just two Items, 
shoes and woolen cloth. The Times, 
of this city, took an apparent census 
of the opinion of shoe dealers of this 
city and of Baltimore and Philadel- 
phia. They all agreed that they would 
have to raise the price of shoes from 
10 to 20 per cent on account of the 
new Tariff, and that would mean from 
50 cents to a dollar a pair. Notwith- 
standing the fact that we have re- 
duced the duty on shoes from 25 per 
cent to 10 per cent, these men would 
make people believe that on account 
of the Tariff they will have to raise 
the price on a pair of shoes from 50 
cents to a dollar. With a duty of 15 
per cent on the leather that enters 
into a pair of shoes it would not aver- 
age over 2 cents a pair. If there Is 
any Tariff question affecting those 
men they should reduce the price on 
account of the reduced Tariff on 
leather 2 cents on a pair of shoes. 

Now, then, as to woolen cloth. There 
has been no advance whatever in the 
woolen schedule. There has been a 
slight reduction on one kind of yarn, 
but thei-e has been no advance. Yet 
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. La 
Follette] stood on this floor on the 
8th of July, and read a letter from a 
combination of clothing dealers stat- 
ing that on account of the new Tariff 
they would be compelled to raise the 
price of clothing to the American peo- 
ple to the amount of $200,000,000 a 
year. 

Political Lies. 

Nobody blames those people for 
wanting to make money out of selling 
cloth; nobody has any ill will toward 
them; but nobody would believe that 
it is a valid excuse for raising the 
price of woolen cloth. Nobody would 
give them the $200,000,000 of clear 
profit except for political lies; and 
when those political lies get the In- 
dorsement of Senators on this floor It 
will deceive a great many of the 
American people and they will prob- 



452 



JOHNSON. CARTER. ALDRICH. 



ably pay the $200,000,000, or a part of 
it, and these dealers will declare a 
handsome dividend. Many people will 
be misled, not by the original state- 
ment of those dealers, but by its in- 
dorsement by Senators, and they will 
pay money, which will add to the 
profit of the dealers. 

The Absolute Necessity for Protec- 
tive Duties on Wool. 

From the- Congressional Record of August 5, 
1909. 
THOMAS H. CARTER, of Montana. 
The maintenance of an adequate duty 
on wool is justified by every con- 
sideration that ever has been or ever 
can be urged in support of a Pro- 
tective Tariff. 

First. Because wool can not be 
profitably produced here in open com- 
petition with the cheap labor of com- 
peting countries. 

Second. Because from the stand- 
point of broad, enlightened public pol- 
icy we are gravely concerned in devel- 
oping and preserving a reliable home 
supply of the material out of which 
clothing is made. 

Third. Because sheep husbandry is 
the foundation upon which wide- 
spread and highly diversified indus- 
tries prosper and furnish profitable 
employment to labor. 

Fourth. Because by encouraging 
woolgrowing we insure the enlarge- 
ment of a steady and valuable source 
of food supply, and, finally because 
woolgrowing is an American industry 
conducted by American yeomen and 
therefore entitled to Protection against 
unequal foreign competition. 

Mere reference to the history of the 
Industry and its ups and downs under 
the various Tariff schedules and court 
decisions of the last forty-two years 
should be accepted as demonstrating 
the absolute necessity for adequate 
Protective duties, and, further still, 
that inadequate duties are no better 
than free wool. But, Mr. President, 
the underlying facts account for and 
support the historical lessons. 

The woolgrowers have prospered 
handsomely and are doing well under 
the existing law which I seek to con- 
tinue. Within the period covered by 
the Dlngley Act the number of sheep 
In this country has increased from 
37,000,000 to over 56,000,000, and wool 



production has increased from 250,000,- 
000 to ovier 311,000,000 pounds. 

Experiments are always fraught 
with danger and certainly should be 
entered upon with great caution. The 
present law is not experimental. We 
know what results will be under the 
Dlngley wool schedules by what re- 
sults have been under that act. Tak- 
ing into account the experience of 
years, the large proportions and wide- 
ly diffused character of the industry, 
the number of persons engaged In and 
dependent upon its successful prose- 
cution, I find no room to doubt that it 
is my duty to insist that the sched- 
ules under which the industry has 
prospered shall be maintained. 

The census of 1900 reports that on 
June 1 of that year sheep were kept 
on 763,543 farms in the United States, M 
and I submit that with due allowance J 
for growth, as shown by the Govern- 
ment reports, we now have over 800,- 
000 farms devoted in whole or in part 
to sheep husbandry, making an aggre- 
gate of at least 4,000,000 of country 
people wholly or partially interested 
in and dependent upon sheep raising. 
For and in behalf of this body of 
worthy citizens I plead for a continu- 
ance of the law under which pros- 
perity has blessed their efforts. 



Would Point Out to the People of 
Iowa the Results of a Generation 
of the Protective Policy. 

From the Congressional Record of August 6, 
J909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode Is- 
land. It was not my good fortune 
to hear the whole of the Senator's 
statement, but I hope he has been 
more correct or nearer correct in the 
statements with reference to the 
other schedules than he has with ref- 
erence to the woolen schedule. There 
are three changes in the woolen sched- 
ule, all upon the manufactures of wool 
— one upon woolen cloths, one upon 
woolen 3'arns, and one upon woolen 
tops — and no changes upon wastes of 
any kind. 

Mr. CUIMMINS. Mr. President, will 
the Senator from Rhode Island point 
out the change upon woolen cloth and 
say what it is? 

Mr. ALDRIClf. A change on Tfom- 



ALDRICIL CUMMINS. 



453 



en's and children's dress goods weigh- 
ing over 4 ounces a square yard, be- 
ing a reduction of 5 per cent; not a 
very large reduction 

Mr. CUMMINS. Precisely. 

Mr. ALDRICH. But still a reduction. 

Mr. CUMMINS. The Senator will re- 
member that I used the word "sub- 
stantial." 

Mr. ALDRICH. I understood the 
Senator to say that there have been 
no changes in anything except 
wastes. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I said "substantially 
unchanged." I repeat it is "substan- 
tially unchanged." 

Mr. ALDRICH. What, in the Sena- 
tor's opinion, would be a substantial 
change? 

Mr. CUMMINS. I am sure the Sena- 
tor from Rhode Island will not claim 
that there has been any substantial 
revision of the woolen schedule down- 
ward. 

There Should Be No Reduction Below Pro- 
ieciive Lines. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I do 
not know what the Senator would 
call a substantial change. The Sena- 
tor, as I understand, is pursuing an 
argument to show that there has been 
no revision downward in this bill. As 
compared to the existing law, there 
are 500 items of reduction in the bill 
as it now stands upon the desks of 
Senators. I do not know what the 
Senator from Iowa expects or what 
the people of Iowa expect in the way 
of reductions. I trust that there have 
been no reductions which have estab- 
lished duties below Protective lines. 
I do not understand that we are as- 
sembled here for any such purpose as 
that. Perhaps the Senator from Iowa 
came here for that purpose; I did not. 
There are 500 reductions in items in 
the bill as it now stands before the 
Senate below the rates in the present 
law. I do not know whether that, in 
the mind of the Senator from Iowa, Is 
substantial or not. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I said 
In the verj' beginning that this bill 
was better than any bill that could 
be framed upon any other than Pro- 
tective principles; better than any bill 
that could be framed upon the doc- 
trine of a Tariff for revenue only. 
That Is about Its only merit. I hope 



sincerely that next year the Senator 
from Rhode Island will come into 
Iowa: and I now extend him a most 
cordial invitation to help me convince 
the people of Iowa what Is true, hon- 
est, fair Protection to American indus- 
tries and American interests. I hope 
he will come there and join with me 
in the effort to make our laws so that 
we will preserve the rights of Ameri- 
can laborers, not only filtered through 
their rapacious employers, but will 
help me put other safeguards around 
their privileges and around their 
homes. 

Glad To Accept the Invitation. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, if I 
have the opportunity I shall only be 
too glad to accept the invitation of 
the Senator from Iowa; and I would 
go before the people of that commu- 
nity, intelligent as they are, and I 
would point out to them the results 
of a generation of the Protective pol- 
icy, which has made that people the 
most prosperous In the world, and the 
richest, gauged by per capita wealth — 
I mean wealth in Its highest and best 
sense. I say to the Senator from Iowa 
that that people have sustained here- 
tofore the policy of Protection. In 
this Chamber and in the other they 
have been represented by men who 
were Protectionists, who did not hesi- 
tate to vote for Protective duties; and 
the time will come, if it is not here 
now, when that people will appreciate, 
as the other people of the United 
States will appreciate, the benefits of 
the doctrine of Protection and its pol- 
icy as exemplified in the legislation of 
this Congress. 

The people of Iowa In the past have 
been drinking from the fountain of 
truth; they have heard the doctrine 
of truth from a man who was hon- 
ored In this body by his services of 
more than thirty years; and I am 
quite sure that the teachings of that 
man are not forgotten in Iowa even 
at the present moment. 

Mr. President, of course I under- 
stand that I should be at a great dis- 
advantage in talking to the farmers 
of Iowa with regard to Protection as 
compared with the Senator from that 
State. But if Protection is of any 
benefit to the people of any country or 
to any portion of the people of this 
country, the principal beneficiaries are 



454 



ALDRICH. CUMMINS. 



the farmers and the people with whom 
they are associated. They are. In my 
judgment, not only the principal bene- 
ficiaries, but they have been in this 
country beneficiaries to an extent 
which has never been equaled by any 
class of people in any country in the 
world. 

What Iowa Lands Are Worth To-day. 

I remember very well, when I was 
a boy, hearing about the lands in Iowa. 
Some of the people of my State were 
very largely Interested in farm lands 
in Iowa. They held mortgages on a 
large quantity of those lands. What 
has become of those mortgages, and 
what has become of those lands? 
They were then worth from three to 
five dolla'rs an acre. What are they 
worth to-day? The people of Iowa, 
the farmers of Iowa, were then the 
debtors of the East. What are they 
to-day? They are furnishing the 
money that develops the industries of 
the United States, not only of the 
West and of the Middle West, but of 
every section and part of this country. 
They are no longer the debtors of any 
class anywhere. They are rich in 
everything which makes people great, 
and, in my judgment, they are not 
quibbling as to whether the rates of 
a Protective Tariff are 1 per cent too 
low or 1 per cent too high. It is the 
great policy of Protection which they 
are supporting and which they have 
ever supported in every presidential 
election which has ever taken place. 
I do not believe that they will be led 
In the future by any sophistical state- 
ment that the rates in this bill are 
not as low as they ought to be to de- 
sert the principles of Protection and 
to desert the flag of the party that 
has made those principles and that 
policy possible. 

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, It Is 
very certain that 

The Republicans of Iowa Will Not Desert 
Their Party. 

You will always find them In the 
first rank. 

It Is not for any Senator here to 
Impugn the loyalty and the steadfast- 
ness of Iowa Republicans. They are 
just as firmly attached to the Repub- 
lican doctrine of Protection as is the 
Senator from Rhode Island, and they 
will be at the camp fire watching, de- 



fending this doctrine of our party 
when others have gone weary to their 
rest. Do not doubt Iowa Republican- 
ism; nor will Iowa Republicans quib- 
ble about 1 per cent or 2 per cent or 
3 per cent. They are not nice and 
critical with respect to Protective du- 
ties. But they do want the doctrine of 
their platform fairly and honestly en- 
forced, and they will have it enforced, 
for I believe that the conscience and 
the judgment of the American people 
are with them. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I remember the cam- 
paign of 1896, and the events which 
led up to It. I remember, because I 
was here, the adoption of the Tariff 
act of 1890, known as the "McKInley 
bill." I remember the opposition 
which came to that bill from all over 
the country, that the Republicans In 
Congress had violated the principles 
of their party by advancing duties be- 
yond a reasonable height. The criti- 
cisms which were made upon the Mc- 
KInley bill, of the same nature as 
those which are now being made upon 
this bill. 

Drove the Republican Party Into Defeat. 

Major McKinley was defeated. He 
was defeated in his own district — a 
Republican district. I think there 
were but 88 Republican Members of 
the House. The others were defeated 
on account of the misrepresentations, 
the palpable "misrepresentations, of the 
character of the McKinley act. 

What happened? The stone which 
the builders rejected became the head- 
stone of the corner, and William Mc- 
Kinley, on acount of his devotion to 
the great principles of Protection, and 
on account of his connection with that 
much-maligned act of 1890, was elect- 
ed President of the United States, and 
the policy which these gentlemen had 
talked about as presenting high rates 
of duty, this policy, which was re- 
jected by reformers of all classes, be- 
came the principle and the policy of 
the American people; and In my judg- 
ment they will never be led to desert 
It by any class of reformers misrep- 
resenting the nature of Protective leg- 
islation and its results. 

If the Senator from Iowa and those 
who are acting with him in this re- 
spect are correct, and If this bill levies 
duties upon the people of the United 
States which are excessive, then they 



ALDRICH. CUMMINS. DOLLIVER. 



455 



ought to vote with the Senator from 
Iowa to displace the Republican party 
from power and put Tariff reformers 
in their places. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I have so dear a re- 
gard for the fortunes of the Repub- 
lican party, for the welfare of the 
people of the United States, that I can 
hope with the Senator from Rhode 
Island that I am mistaken, and that 
the people will enter judgment against 
my views. But I do not to believe that 
the Republican voters of the United 
States will reach the conclusion that 
these duties are properly adjusted. I 
do not believe they will regard these 
duties as the fulfillment of the prom- 
ises we made in the Chicago platform, 
and I do believe that with a voice 
that no Senator dare disobey, no Rep- 
resentative dare disobey, in the near 
future we will be required to readjust 
some of the inequalities, and remove 
some of the Injustices from this meas- 
ure. 

Mr. ALDRICH. From whom does 
the Senator from Iowa expect that 
mandate? From the great majority 
of the Republican party? From the 
people who represent it in this Cham- 
ber and in the House of Representa- 
tives and in the executive chair? Or 
does he expect it from a minority, re- 
spectable and able and conscientious? 

Who Is To Give This IVIandate 

for a change in this act and for re- 
vision downward to an extent that 
will satisfy the Senator from Iowa? 
Whence will come the word? Will it 
come from the great majority of the 
Republican party, stretched across 
from California to Maine, or will it 
come from a class of conscientious, 
theoretical. If you will permit the term, 
reformers? 

Mr. CUMMINS. Misguided. 

Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, I will not say 
misguided, because I admire the con- 
sistency of the Senator from Iowa. I 
have had occasion several times on 
this floor to say that I honor a man 
who believes that low Tariffs are bet- 
ter than high Tariffs, and who has the 
courage, as a Republican, to say so 
against the opinions and the wishes 
and the judgment of the great ma- 
jority of his party. 

I honor a man "^who has the courage 
to stand up in the Senate of the Unit- 



ed Statfes and say that the great mass 
of his party are mistaken; that the 
President of the United States Is mis- 
taken, and this bill is a delusion and 
a sham; that we are the misguided 
people who are voting for what we 
understand to be the policy of the 
Republican party, a policy upon which 
the people of the United States have 
set the seal of approval many and 
many a time from 1856 to the last con- 
vention that was held, and, in my 
judgment, upon which they will con- 
tinue to set their seal of approval In 
the future. 

An Advocate of Low Tariffs. 

No; I am not mistaken about the 
Senator from Iowa. I know that he 
has on every field and on every occa- 
sion sought to Indoctrinate the people 
he represents and the people of the 
whole country with his idea that Tar- 
iffs should be reduced; that low Tariffs 
are necessary for the benefit of the 
people of the United States. I honor 
him for his courage, but I ask him as 
a Republican and as a Protectionist 
to give to those of us who disagree 
with him the right to our opinions 
and to our judgments; and if we re- 
main as we are, the representatives of 
the great majority of the American 
people, then I ask him to submit, if he 
will, to the will of the majority. 

Mr. CUMMINS. I am grateful for 
the expression of confidence In my mo- 
tives, I began this address, which 
should have come to an end long ago, 
with the statement that I granted to 
every Senator the very same measure 
of honesty that I claim for myself. I 
have never at any time Impugned or 
challenged the motive of any Senator 
In this body. 



Opposed to the Measure Because of 
the Methods by Which It Has Been 
Prepared. 

From the Congressional Record of August 6, 
jgog. 
JONATHAN P. DOLLIVER, of Iowa. 
I have been charged here and else- 
where with a betrayal of the Protect- 
ive-Tariff system, and the humble sug- 
gestions which I have felt It incum- 
bent upon me to make have been met 
with a tone of malice and derision 
which ought not to Intrude upon pro- 



456 



DOLLIVER. NEEDHAM. 



ceedings such as ours. Yet the fact 
stands that throughout this contro- 
versy from its beginning, I have never 
deviated from a lifelong devotion to 
the Protective-Tariff doctrine. I have 
not eren been controlled by the views 
of the community in which I live in 
casting my votes in this session In 
exact accord, as I have understood it, 
with the Protective principle. The 
efforts I have made on this floor to 
modify some of these schedules, in- 
stead of being the efforts of a Free- 
Trade enthusiast or an enemy of the 
Tariff system, have been those of a 
consistent Protectionist, standing not 
only by the platform of his party, but 
by the historic standard which the 
party has interpreted in the legisla- 
tion of the last thirty years. 

I can not support this measure, be- 
cause I am opposed to the methods by 
which it has been prepared. A distin- 
guished leader of the Senate in the 
course of the debate took occasion to 
say that nobody ought to speak dis- 
respectfully of the wool Tariff, of 
Schedule K, because it was the "cita- 
del of Protection." I deny It, The 
citadel of Protection Is In the judgment 
and good sense of the American people 
from one ocean to the other. The cita- 
del of Protection Is the right, which 
every American producer who Invests 
his labor or his money In an indus- 
trial enterprise has, of living without 
being disturbed either In his employ- 
ment or in his reasonable profit by 
the competition flowing into our mar- 
ket place from other lands. That la 
the citadel of Protection, which I shall 
defend In the future, as I have In all 
the years of my life, against all its 
enemies. 

Mr. President, the Republican party, 
If I understand its history. Is a great 
deal larger than the schedules of a 
Tariff law. There Is room in It for 
every man's honest convictions. It 
did not arise merely to meet or solve 
problems of economy and finance. It 
has its fundamental doctrines as to 
both; but it is ridiculous to try to 
build the fame of Its leaders In these 
days or to fix the party standing of 
Its members by calling the roll upon 
the report of a conference committee 
on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on a bill tinkering up a few 
minor details of an old Tariff law. 



The Party Has Larger Business Than Thi$ 

In the Immediate future. It must deal 
with problems of popular education. 
It must promote a better understand- 
ing between those who earn their 
bread by daily work and their em- 
ployers. It must stand guard over the 
American market place to prevent cap- 
ital, massed In ' great corporations, 
from exercising the evil influences 
which follow monopoly and the injuri- 
ous restraint of trade. It must see to 
it that prejudices based on race and 
color are not permitted to degrade 
American labor, as slavery once de- 
graded It. The Republican party Is 
face to face, as In the days of Its 
youth, with the elementary questions 
which concern justice and liberty. 

Mr. President, from time to time 
during this session of Congress I 
have felt called upon to state my views 
on certain matters with which this 
measure deals, I have tried to defend 
the opinions which I have held In de- 
bate and to express my convictions 
with my recorded vote. For these 
things I have been called Into Judg- 
ment. I would not escape that judg- 
ment if I could. I am ready not only 
for the opinion of my own State, but 
for the opinion of the people every- 
where, I have a special duty, how- 
ever, to the constituency which gives 
me the right to sit here, I can not 
neglect that; I can not betray that. 
No pressure from any quarter can 
move my resolution to stand by their 
Interests and to guard what I believe 
to be the welfare of that people and 
their children; and if through fidelity 
to that conviction, if in following that 
sense of duty, I am to be read out, 
here or elsewhere, from the goodly fel- 
lowship of the old Republican party, 
I shall hope to find In the dignity and 
self-respect of private life at least a 
partial reimbursement for the anxi- 
eties and burdens which for nearly 
twenty-five years have rested upon me 
in the service of the people of the 
United States. 



The Protective Policy Is Overwhelm- 
ingly Intrenched in Public Favor. 

From the Congressional Record of August 6, 
J909. 
JAMES C. NEEDHAM, of California, 



NEEDHAM. 



457 



Those periods in our history when we 
are engaged in the readjustment of 
the duties on imports have always 
formed in a legislative sense the most 
Important periods of our history. 
Alexander Hamilton in his famous Re- 
port on Manufactures gave to our 
country an economic policy which has 
proven in all the vicissitudes of our 
national life equal to every emergency. 

Daniel Webster, with eloquence un- 
equaled, made more secure in popular 
favor the Protective policy suggested 
by Hamilton. Henry Clay, Morrill, 
Blaine, McKinley, and Dingley, in the 
work which they did in writing into 
legislative enactments the great Tariff 
statutes of their periods, made the 
Protective policy the permanent policy 
of the Government. The Protective 
policy is overwhelmingly intrenched in 
public favor, and only its unreason- 
able application, or its extension where 
not needed, can weaken its hold upon 
the country. 

Every ten years or so, owing to 
changed conditions in business and 
production, it becomes important to re- 
examine and readjust our Tariff sched- 
ules. These schedules are so inter- 
related and interdependent that it Is 
the generally accepted method to treat 
the Tariff question as a whole, and the 
entire subject of import duties in a 
separate and distinct measure. Our 
Democratic friends some years ago at- 
tempted to ignore this method, to their 
great sorrow and discomfiture and po- 
litical undoing. The attempt in the 
Morrison Tariff bill to reduce import 
duties horizontally and the attempt of 
the late William M. Springer, when 
chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means of a Democratic House, to 
revise the Tariff by special bills, each 
dealing with separate schedules, which 
bills became historically known as 
"popgun bills," both resulted disas- 
trously to their authors and to the 
political party then in power. It has 
therefore in almost all instances been 
historically true that the Tariff ques- 
tion has been taken up periodically 
as a whole and dealt with in a sepa- 
rate measure, embracing all the in- 
dustries of the country, and this meth- 
od thus far has proven the most satis- 
factory. Whether this policy will be 
followed in the future as implicity as 
In the past remains to be seen. 



But, Mr. Speaker, there Is no ques- 
tion that so intimately concerns the 
progress and prosperity of the country 
as our Tariff policy. 

The People of This Nation Are Wedded to 
the Policy of Protection. 

They understand Its benefits, and 
above all they appreciate what it 
means whenever that policy has been 
abandoned. These publications and 
special writers, who began with con- 
fidence to attack the Tariff policy, with 
few exceptions suddenly awoke to a 
realization that an attack upon our 
Tariff policy after all would not be 
received by the great bulk of the 
American people without protest, and 
the attack has, generally speaking, 
fallen fiat, and in most instances has 
been abandoned. 

Mr. Speaker, it has been repeatedly 
stated during the debate, until it has 
become a trite statement, that no one, 
in the nature of things, can be entirely 
satisfied with a Tariff measure. I 
know that not a single member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, who 
helped to frame the bill in the first in- 
stance, approved all the items In the 
bill. I know that there are many pro- 
visions of the bill that were incorpo- 
rated without my vote and against my 
protest. Notwithstanding this, I am 
very glad to give my support to this 
measure. If each man on this floor 
was to oppose the bill because he was 
disappointed or not satisfied with 
some of its provisions, we would be 
compelled to abandon all efforts to 
pass this measure or any other Tariff 
bill that might be prepared. 

Every Tariff Measure Is a Compromise. 

It represents mutual concessions. 
No Tariff bill ever prepared has been 
without its imperfections and incon- 
sistencies. Every Tariff bill from the 
foundation of the Government has been 
considered as a political question. In 
the preparation of this bill an honest 
effort has been made to fulfill the 
promise of the Republican party con- 
tained in the platform of the last 
presidential election. Our criterion In 
fixing the duties has been to make the 
duty equal the difference of the cost 
of producing the article at home and 
abroad, with a reasonable profit to the 
producer. That difference In cost, in 



458 



NEEDHAM. ALDRICH. 



my judgment, should be the difference 
In cost in the competing markets, or, 
in other words, the place where the 
competing articles are to be consumed. 
In fixing this difference, in order to 
do justice and give that measure of 
Protection which is essential, you must 
consider many elements. You must 
consider the nature of the articles be- 
tween which there Is competition. 



The Most Important and Comprehen- 
sive Measure Ever Enacted by the 
American Congress. 

From the Congressional Record of September I, 
1909. 

NELSON W. ALDRICH, of Rhode 
Island. Mr. President, the people of 
the United States are to be congratu- 
lated that this prolonged Tariff debate 
Is about to close. Every member of 
this Senate is weary of the discussion 
— a weariness which I share to the 
fullest extent. The bill which is about 
to be voted upon and which will be- 
come a law In the course of a few 
hours will be in many respects the 
most important and comprehensive 
measure ever enacted by the American 
Congress. 

It will cover not only the whole 
range of Tariff rates, but it will pro- 
vide for many other things, some of 
them more important than its Tariff 
provisions. It provides a system of 
maximum and minimum duties, which 
are essential for the Protection of 
American interests at home and 
abroad. It provides a comprehensive 
administrative act for the collection 
of customs. It provides a new method 
for the assessment of duties by taking 
Into consideration the home as well 
as the foreign valuation. It estab- 
lishes a customs court, a tribunal for 
the final decision and disposition of 
customs cases. It extends the draw- 
back provision of the existing law to 
manufactured articles composed In 
part of materials upon which an In- 
ternal-revenue tax has been paid — a 
provision which, in my judgment, will 
be extremely beneficial to our foreign 
trade. 

It enables the shipbuilders of the 
United States, who build ships for for- 



eign account and ownership from im- 
ported materials, to receive the full 
benefit of a drawback upon those ma- 
terials; and I believe it will enable 
our shipbuilders to enter into compe- 
tition with foreign shipbuilders for 
the construction of ships for foreign 
account, including battle-ships for oth- 
er countries. It contains many other 
very important legislative provisions 
which I will not take the time of the 
Senate to recount. 

A Matter of Sincere Regret 
Mr. President, it Is a matter of sin- 
cere regret to me that the bill will 
not receive the unanimous approval 
of Republican Senators. An act of this 
kind, so important and comprehensive 
In its character, should receive, it 
seems to me, the support of all Sena- 
tors who believe, as I do, in the policy 
of the party and in the principles of 
Protection. I do not fail to realize 
that the Senators who can not give 
their support to this measure are as 
much entitled to their judgment and 
are as conscientious in the perform- 
ance of their duty as are those who 
will vote with the majority. I am 
certain that the Republican Senators 
who will vote against the bill are en- 
tirely mistaken as to the character of 
the measure, and I am equally certain 
that they have been misled by the mis- 
representations of interested parties. 
As it applies to rates, the Senator 
from Texas [Mr. Bailey] says that the 
average ad valorem in this bill will be 
higher than the existing law. The 
Senator from Texas knows as well as 
I that the Protective character of an 
act can not be determined by the av- 
erage ad valorem rates imposed by It. 
The British customs Tariff, which has 
no Protective features In It, or very 
few, imposes an average ad valorem 
rate of between 75 and 80 per cent 
upon all the articles included In Its 
provisions, yet I will assume that it 
will not be claimed that the British 
Tariff is a high Protective measure. 
This bill is not to be judged by its 
average ad valorems or by the equiva- 
lent ad valorem levied upon any par- 
ticular article; but It is to be judged 
by the character of the measure as a 
whole. In making that test. I ask 
the attention of the Senate for a mo- 
ment to the principles followed In Its 
construction. 



ALDRICH. DICK. 



450 



Protection Does Not Mean Prohibition. 

It does not mean excessive duties; 
but it means duties which will equal- 
ize conditions — conditions of produc- 
tion and distribution between this 
country and other competing countries. 
This is not a new principle, nor was 
it enunciated for the first time in the 
Chicago platform. It has furnished 
the foundation upon which has been 
erected every wise Tariff law that has 
been enacted in our history. 

The Senator from Texas says truly 
that we have reduced duties on 500 
articles. Why have we done so? Be- 
cause the duties lowered were higher 
than were necessary to Protect the 
American industries to which they ap- 
plied. That is the reason. Protection 
does not involve the Imposition of 
rates which will permit or insure mo- 
nopoly in the United States. The pur- 
pose of Protective duties is by the 
equalization of the conditions to which 
I have alluded to permit the existence 
in this country of all the various In- 
dustries involved,, to encourage them, 
to Protect them, to develop them; the 
theory of Protection being that, if we 
permit American industries to live by 
the imposition of Protective duties, 
competition in this country will so af- 
fect prices that it will give the Ameri- 
can consumer the best possible results. 
That has been the true theory upon 
which the Protective policy has been 
based from its inception to the present 
time. 

Protection Does Not Tend Toward Monop- 
oly. 

I can not understand how It Is possi- 
ble to have monopoly under the Pro- 
tective system upon Protected articles. 
The enterprise and the energy of the 
American people have made such mo- 
nopolies impossible. No Senator can 
point out a single industry in this 
country subject to a Protective duty 
that is controlled by a monopoly. I 
make that statement as broad as it Is 
possible to make it. You can not have 
monopolies if Protective duties are lev- 
led, as they should be, along real Pro- 
tective lines. 

If there are any prohibitive duties 
in this bill. If there are any duties 
that are excessive along the lines I 
have laid down, I do not know It. I 
do not believe that there are any du- 



ties levied in this bill that are exces- 
sive or that are prohibitory. I think 
those Senators who have an idea that 
there may be duties of that kind have 
not studied the bill and are not famil- 
iar with its provisions. 

I will submit, and ask to have 
printed in the Record, a statement of 
the changes from the Senate bill by 
the conference report, and I hope that 
the Senator from Texas at some time 
will take an opportunity to examine it. 

Mr. President, the conferees have 
Increased the rates on 30 items above 
the Senate bill. We have yielded to 
the House Increases in 30 cases, but 
we have reduced the duties below the 
Senate bill in something like 110 items. 
I shall not take the time of the Senate 
to read this list, but I am desirous of 
having it put In the Record, because 
I want the Senate to understand, and I 
want the people of the United States 
to understand, that any attempt on 
the part of the opponents of this meas- 
ure to show that it has increased rates 
above the Protective requirements or 
that any of Its rates are excessive is 
a mistake, as no such thing has taken 
place. 

No Misgivings as to t/ie Future. 

I have no misgivings as to the fu- 
ture. I have heard before dismal 
prophecies like that which has just 
been uttered by the Senator from 
Texas. I have witnessed the passage 
of Ave Tariff bills by the Senate, and 
I have, on frequent occasions, heard 
Senators sitting on the other side of the 
aisle repeat and reiterate these dismal 
prophecies as to what would follow if 
we should follow the dictates of our 
judgment and adhere to the policy to 
which the Republican party has been 
so thoroughly committed. I have no 
fears for the future. The American 
people can be relied upon to maintain 
their unswerving loyalty to the Pro- 
tective policy. 



Better Be on the Safe Side; Make 
the Rates Too High Rather Than 
Too Low. 

From fhe Congressional Record of September J, 
1909. 
CHARLES DICK, of Ohio. Mr. Presi- 
dent, In many cases I have not agreed 
with the committee and some of the 



460 



DICK. 



changes agreed to In conference are 
not in accord with my ideas of Tariff 
revision, but I appreciate fully that 
all Tariff legislation is a matter of 
compromise and adjustment of differ- 
ences and know full well that no mem- 
ber of this body is entirely satisfied 
with every schedule in this bill. 

If you ask me why I am going to 
vote for this bill, I reply because In 
my judgment it is the best bill under 
all the circumstances which it was possi- 
ble to frame at this time, for never in 
my observation has an effort to revise 
th'e Tariff been so involved by diverse 
and conflicting conditions. 

I do not agree, Mr. President, that 
this bill is better than the Dingley law. 
That can only be determined by re- 
sults, but if this measure shall do its 
work as well as did the Dingley law, 
we shall not need to either defend It 
or apologize for it. In my judgment 
we shall be less censured for making 
rates too high than for making them 
too low. An excessive rate invites cap- 
ital and skilled labor to enter a field 
of competition, but a rate too low 
invites foreign competition into the 
field, closes mills, and destroys indus- 
tries, and these can not be restored. 
Better, therefore, be on the safe side. 

Better Make the Rates Too High Than 
Too Low. 

I firmly believe the next revision of 
the Tariff will not be a "downward 
revision." That there will occur from 
time to time a readjustment of sched- 
ules there can be no doubt, but the 
encroachments of European and orien- 
tal producers in our own market, the 
best market in the world, together 
with the high Tariffs now in force in 
Germany, France, and other European 
countries, and one which Great Brit- 
ain will adopt at no distant day, will 
arouse the American producer, the 
farmer, manufacturer, miner, and toil- 
er alike to the necessity of Protecting 
this market for the benefit of those 
who make it, rather than for the 
benefit of those who would invade it. 

Let us hope, Mr. President, that we 
have learned It is "better to have 
home competition than to have our 
markets dominated by foreign monop- 
oly." 

No vote of mine will be knowingly 
cast which will menace any industry 



In this country, or threaten a single 
day's wage of any toiler in the land. 

Protect/on More Than a Local Issue. 

A one-time candidate for the presi- 
dency subjected himself to consider- 
able criticism because he made the re- 
mark that the Tariff was a local Issue. 
In the discussion of the schedules of 
this bill this once laughed at remark 
has been considered more seriously, 
until it seems to have been agreed 
upon by a very considerable class of 
people that the Tariff is solely and 
only a local issue. I desire to dissent 
most vigorously from that proposition. 
While it is true that there are many 
industries Protected by the bill which 
are local to perhaps one, or at least 
very few, places in the United States, 
and to that extent the people living 
in those localities are peculiarly In- 
terested in the Protection of that home 
Industry. I can not see that such a 
situation at all sustains the proposi- 
tion that the Tariff is a local issue. 
For my party, while I have been 
anxious to see adequate Protective 
rates maintained for the industries of 
my own State, I have been just as 
willing to see the industries of every 
other section of the country equally 
Protected. I have voted heartily for 
Tariff rates necessary to Protect the 
industries of the great West and of 
the industries of New England. I 
have been willing to accord to every 
section of the country the same meas- 
ure of Protection I have sought for 
my own. 

I a"m a firm believer In a Tariff for 
Protection. I believe the rates should 
be high enough not only to maintain 
the present high rate of wages paid 
the American laborer, but should also 
be high enough to give the manufac- 
turer a fair profit on his Investment. 
That Is the substance of the Tariff 
plank in the last Republican national 
platform. The doctrine laid down 
there has been my guide in all the 
votes taken on this measure. I have 
tried to be consistent and have en- 
deavored as best I could by my votes 
to secure a Tariff bill which will af- 
ford adequate Protection to every 
American Industry. 

Our Obligation to Our Wage-Earners. 
We have for the last fifty years de- 
veloped a labor market by encoura^^lngr 



DICK. 



461 



the establishment of factories and 
mills to make manufactures of cotton 
and wool and Iron to supply the do- 
mestic demand and to sell abroad. We 
have thirty-flve to forty millions of 
men and women, Including those de- 
pendent on them, who toil by their 
hands and with their brains to produce 
articles of commerce. We are under 
obligation to the capital invested and 
to the wage-earners to Protect this 
market. What are we to do with this 
great multitude? Shall we, with the 
deluded idea of benefiting the consum- 
er and encouraging the foreign manu- 
facturer, turn them out of American 
mills and shops and set them to till- 
ing the soil? The attacks on the 
American manufacturer we have heard 
in this Chamber are attacks on Ameri- 
can labor, and if ever successful will 
inevitably tend to bring the American 
laboring man nearer to the level of the 
foreign laborer. What Is to become 
of our obligations to the men who 
toil? We can not harm the manufac- 
turer without injuring the laborer. 
The man In the shops is the man most 
vitally concerned in the schedules of 
this bill. 

The Standard Oil Company, Interna- 
tional Harvester Company, Singer 
Manufacturing Company, and other 
great industrial combinations have 
plants abroad. The most profitable 
plant of the Pittsburg Plate Glass 
Company is in Belgium. Why may not 
the steel corporation do the same? It 
has the ability to do so, and the prin- 
cipal loss would be to the American 
wage-earner. After we have beaten 
down our duties and opened our mar- 
ket to the foreigner, a short experi- 
ence of this disastrous policy would 
compel us to raise our duties in order 
to rebuild ruined home industries and 
correct our former mistake. A great 
steel corportion may go abroad, but 
the small steel manufacturer can not. 
He will have to shut down, blow out 
his furnaces, and pocket his loss. 

Our Indusirial Success Due to Preser- 
vation of Home Market. 
It was not many years ago that the 
United States occupied a very insig- 
nificant position as a manufacturer of 
Iron and steel. It Is within the mem- 
ory of most of us when we purchased 
steel rails abroad and paid for them 



at the rate of $125 a ton. As a direct 
result of the policy of Protection the 
United States now occupies a very 
important position in the iron and 
steel industry, and its total production 
is greater than that of Great Britain, 
Germany, and Belgium combined. This 
Is due, however, not to our foreign 
trade in this line of manufacture, 
which normally Is only 10 per cent of 
our total output, but is due to our 
domestic market, which has been built 
up and maintained by the policy of 
Protection. Because of the encourage- 
ment thus given to home industry 
there has been an enormous develop- 
ment of business. An immense amount 
of capital has been invested, and hun- 
dreds of thousands of workingmen 
have been given profitable employment. 
The high rate of wages paid the 
American workingman has enabled 
him to live in a state of comfort un- 
known to the workingman of any oth- 
er country. It has enabled him to 
give to his children greater advantages 
and opportunities, which have been the 
direct cause of a great increase in the 
economic and industrial efficiency of 
the country. The wealth thus created 
has been more evenly distributed than 
In other countries not enjoying the 
same advantages. Higher wages to 
workingmen mean a better market 
and higher prices for the farmer and 
all he produces. He has been able to 
wear better clothes and live in better 
homes, and this has built up additional 
Industries and given profitable employ- 
ment to other workingmen, and the 
whole country has reaped the reward 
in the industrial supremacy which it 
now enjoys. The enormous production 
of iron and steel, made possible in this 
country by the policy of Protection, 
has caused the wonderful development 
of all industries using such material. 
Without the policy of Protection this 
tremendous development would not 
have taken place as soon as it has 
taken place, and perhaps It never 
would have occurred. It must not be 
forgotten that Great Britain did not 
abandon the policy of Protection until 
she had practically conquered the mar- 
kets of the world because of her low 
production cost, and It must also be 
remembered that when Great Britain 
entered upon a policy of Free-Trade 
the markets of Continental Europe had 



DICK. 



not been closed as they have been 
since by high Protective Tariffs. It is 
safe to assume that Great Britain 
would not have turned from Protec- 
tion to Free-Trade had her chief for- 
eign marlcets at that time been Pro- 
tected as they now are by high Tariff 
walls. 

Possibf/ities as to Foreign Markets. 

We talk about the Industrial su- 
premacy of the United States and 
about conquering the markets of the 
world, but it must not be forgotten 
that our chief exports are those things 
which we produce in large quantities 
and which the countries buying of us 
do not produce, and that the great 
markets of Europe, outside of Great 
Britain are closed to us on competitive 
products. The time is not yet come, 
and will not come as long as the 
American wage-earner lives better 
than does his foreign competitor, when 
the United States can thrown open its 
magnificent market to the manufac- 
turers of Europe. "We must Protect 
our manufacturers against average 
trade conditions, and not against ab- 
normal conditions which prevail in 
times or periods of great domestic de- 
pression. 

Tariff schedules must be framed to 
meet normal conditions both at home 
and abroad. If this is not done, for- 
eign manufacturers will take advan- 
tage of like periods of depression to 
market their output in this country at 
prices which the domestic manufac- 
turer could not possibly meet. 

Importers Represented to a Larger De- 
gree Than Domestic Manufacturers, 

American manufacturers and busi- 
ness interests are criticised as if it 
were a crime to maintain representa- 
tives at Washington to look after their 
Interests in this bill and with carry- 
ing on a campaign of publicity in 
their own behalf. I am told by those 
who should know that great Importing 
interests are represented here to a 
larger degree than domestic manufac- 
turers, and that for every dollar ex- 
pended by home producers in print- 
ters' ink and advancing tlieir Interests, 
three dollars have been spent for the 
same purpose by the importing inter- 
ests. My attention has been called to 
letters and printed matter and to briefs 



presented by its attorneys emanating 
from a firm of importing iron and 
steel merchants who are known as the 
exclusive United States representatives 
of the great Krupp Steel Works, in 
Germany. They have suggested num- 
erous amendments to this bill, every 
one of which is against the interests 
of the home manufacturer and In favor 
of the gigantic plant in Germany 
which they represent. 

Decline of Britisfi Industries. 
The true test of an economic sys- 
tem, like all other things else, is 
found in its results. Judged by this 
test, Free-Trade has proved a stupend- 
ous failure, first, by being rejected by 
all countries except one, and by all the 
self-governing colonies of that one, 
and, second, by its exposure of the 
industries of that country to the dis- 
aster which has been coming upon 
them in recent years. It has long 
been known that the agriculture of 
Great Britain has been all but ruined 
by free imports of agricultural prod- 
ucts, but this has been excused by 
the belief that it has made food cheap 
to the people, and has therefore built 
up and preserved a manufacturing 
prosperity far exceeding in value the 
products of the land. The inquiries 
of recent royal commissions have 
shown that both agriculture and manu- 
factures in nearly all branches have 
suffered and are still suffering like 
those of no other free country. 

Tlie Rise in Prices. 
I am unwilling to leave this general 
discussion of the Protective system — 
I will not say defense of the system, 
for it needs no defense — without a 
word about the charge that it is in 
some mysterious way responsible for 
the advance in prices which has char- 
acterized conditions In recent years. 
Why this charge should be seriously 
made by serious or well-informed peo- 
ple is difficult to understand. Can 
they really believe that the Protective- 
Tariff, either in the United States or 
elsewhere, can in any way have been 
responsible for the advance in prices 
in the country of production of the 
silk and tea of China and Japan, the 
India rubber of Africa and Brazil, the 
manlla hemp of the Philippine Islands, 
the rice of Slam and Burma, the tin 
ore of the Malayan Peninsula, the Jute 



DICK. DEPEW. 



r463 



of India, the raw cotton of Egypt? 
Yet the reports of our Bureau of Sta- 
tistics of the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor show advances with- 
in a few years of from 50 to 100 per 
cent in the cost in the country of 
production of all these articles. Can 
they see any reason why the Protect- 
ive Tariff makes people in other parts 
of the world willing to pay higher 
prices for our wheat and flour and 
corn and meats? Yet It Is well known 
that the prices at which these articles, 
the products of our farms, are being 
exported are from 50 to 100 per cent 
higher than a few years ago. True, 
we believers in the Protective theory 
will admit that the home activities, 
the prosperity of the masses result- 
ing from the activities of our manu- 
facturing interests and the distribution 
of two and one-half billion dollars a 
year as wages in our factories, have 
given a good home demand and good 
home prices for our farm products, but 
It will scarcely be claimed that the 
Protective Tariff makes the Free-Trade 
Englishman willing to pay more for 
our meats or live cattle, the Dutch- 
man of low-Tariff Holland willing to 
advance his prices for our wheat or 
flour or copper, or the manufacturing 
countries which import our cotton free 
of duty willing to pay higher prices 
for that article. 

Nor can it be charged that Protec- 
tion Is responsible for the general ad- 
vance In prices and wages in Eng- 
land, in Belgium, In India, In Egypt, 
In Japan, or the other countries in 
which Tariff can not be classed as 
Protective, at least in the sense In 
which we consider Protection. 

The cause of the advance in prices 
the world over, in Free-Trade coun- 
tries as well as those having Protec- 
tion — for the advance is general and 
without relation to Tariff systems — is 
found in the general business activity, 
in the general employment, and in the 
higher earnings of the employed, the 
higher earnings of all classes, and 
therefore, the willingness to buy more 
and to pay higher prices for the 
things wanted and bought. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, while 
this bill may not be entirely satisfac- 
tory, in my opinion under all the ex- 
isting conditions it Is the best Tariff 
measure obtainable in this Congress, 



and, predicating my action on the be- 
lief that in the main its provisions are 
amply Protective and that the country 
as a result of its enactment will enjoy 
a period of marked advancement and 
substantial prosperity, I shall cast my 
vote in favor of the bill. 



The American People Were Provided 
Witli as Merry a Christmas as Had 
Ever Fallen to Their Lot. 

From the Congressional Record of December io, 
1909. 

CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, of New 
York. Mr. President, the message of 
the President of the United States, 
communicated to the two Houses of 
Congress at the beginning of the sec- 
ond session of the Sixty-first Con- 
gress, on the 7th of the present month, 
concluded as follows: 

Speaking generally, the country Is In 
a high state of prosperity. There is 
every reason to believe that we are on 
the eve of a substantial business expan- 
sion, and we have just garnered a har- 
vest unexampled in the market value of 
our agricultural products. The high J 
prices which such products bring mean \ 
great prosperity for the farming com- 
munity, but on the other hand they mean 
a very considerably increased burden 
upon those classes in the community 
whose yearly compensation does not ex- , 
pand with the improvement in business -j 
and the general prosperity. Various rea- 
sons are given for the high prices. The 
proportionate increase in the output of 
gold, which to-day is the chief medium 
of exchange and is in some respects a 
measure of value, furnishes a substantial 
explanation of at least part of the In- , 
crease in prices. The increase in popula- 1 
tion and the more expensive mode of liv- J 
ing of the people, which have not been ; 
accompanied by a proportionate increase 
in acreage production, may furnish a 
further reason. It is well to note that 
the increase in the cost of living Is not 
confined to this country, but prevails 
the world over, and that those who would 
charge increases in prices to the existing 
Protective Tariff must meet the fact that 
the rise in prices has taken place almost 
wholly in those products of the factory 
and farm in respect to which there has 
been either no increase In the Tariff or In 
many instances a very considerable re- 
duction. 

Shedding a Few Beams of Tariff Sun- 
shine. 
Notwithstanding this clarion note of 
satisfaction and hope from President 
Taft, who speaks with authority from 
a recent visit to nearly all parts of 



464 



DBPEW. 



the country, and from the reports of 
officers of the Government in close 
touch with every department of Amer- 
ican industry, production, and finance, 
the country is burdened by an unpre- 
cedented amount of pesslnr.istic proph- 
ecy in relation to our future. We are 
told that the Tariff which passed at 
the close of the extra session in Au- 
gfust last has raised the price of the 
necessaries of life, and is essentially 
a measure for revision upward instead 
of downward. The daily and weekly 
press and the magazines are filled with 
articles predicting a failure in the near 
future of our food and fuel supplies. 
This feeling of pending peril is also 
voiced in the co-ordinate branch of 
this Congress. Such views are most 
untimely on the eve of Christmas. 
They make melancholy those choicest 
days of the year, the holiday season. 
I desire therefore to spread upon the 
record, if I may, a few beams of sun- 
shine, and to prove, which I think can 
easily be done, that the American 
people have before them as merry a 
Christmas as has ever fallen to their 
lot. 

The Usual Tactics of Democrats, Free- 
Traders, and Mugwump Republicans. 

The Tariff bill has been viciously 
assailed, and its provisions have been 
subject to more glaring misrepresen- 
tations than any other enactment in 
this generation. The same tactics 
were employed by Democrats, Free- 
Traders, revenue theorists, and dis- 
gruntled Republicans against the Mc- 
Kinley bill when it was enacted in 
1890. The elections came before the 
practical workings of the measure 
could demonstrate the falsity of these 
attacks, and the Democrats elected 
a President and both Houses of Con- 
gress. Their first effort was to revise 
the Tariff, and the result was what 
is known as the Wilson-Gorman bill. 
Following Its passage and the effect 
it had upon American industries and 
labor, we had one of the most severe 
panics in our history. Out of this 
distress came the triumph of McKinley, 
with a majority in both Houses and 
the passage of the Dingley bill, under 
which we have lived and prospered 
since 1897. 

During that period there was an in- 
crease In the value of American man- 



ufactures of over twelve hundred mil- 
lions of dollars, and an Increase in the 
number of workers in every depart- 
ment of American industry from 26,- 
350,000 to 34,000,000. The extraordi- 
nary feature of this is that under our 
economic system we have been able to 
find remunerative employment for this 
addition of 7,650,000 who required em- 
ployment at paying wages. There has 
been an increase during the same pe- 
riod of 50,000 manufacturing estab- 
lishments, working in 368 different In- 
dustr-ies, offering employment in new 
industries developed by Protection 
which did not exist when the Dingley 
bill was enacted. 

Five Hundred Reductions of Rates Cover- 
ing Thousands of Articles. 

In the new Tariff there have been 
500 reductions of rates, covering thou- 
sands of articles. The increases have 
been about 100 — almost entirely In ar- 
ticles of luxury. In agricultural Im- 
plements, like wagons, mowers, bind- 
ers, harrows, rakes, plows, cultivators, 
thrashers, and drills, there has been a 
uniform reduction of 25 per cent. In 
red and white lead for paint, In var- 
nishes, glazed brick, earthenware and 
china in common use, and common 
window glass, there has been a reduc- 
tion of from 10 to 33 per cent. Bar 
iron used by blacksmiths has been re- 
duced 50 per cent, and so have steel 
rails, while on steel beams and girders 
for buildings, hoop and bar iron, barb 
wire for fences, bolts and nuts, knives 
and forks for table use, spikes and 
nails, horseshoes, muleshoes, tacks, 
brads, saws, screws, sewing machines, 
typewriters, all of which are necessary 
for house-building business and domes- 
tic purposes, the duties have been re- 
duced from 12 to 50 per cent. 

Oilcloths and linoleums for floors 
have been reduced from 9 to 38 per 
cent, and oilcloths for tables, and so 
forth, 40 per cent. The duties on bi- 
tuminous coal have been reduced 33 
per cent; print paper, 37 per cent; hats 
and bonnets, 20 per cent; boots and 
shoes. 40 per cent; sole leather and 
belting, 75 per cent; leather for shoe 
uppers, 25 per cent; gloves for ordi- 
nary use, 30 per cent; harness, sad- 
dles, and so forth, 55 per cent. In 
addition, we have let in Philippine and 
Porto Rican sugar free and retained 



DEPEW. 



465 



the 20 per cent advantage for Cuban 
sugar. In lumber necessary for cheap 
houses there has been a reduction of 
50 per cent on part and from 30 to 37 
per cent on the rest. Fence posts 
have been made free, and laths have 
been reduced 20 per cent. It w^lll be 
seen here that in everything which 
enters into the life of the farm and 
the building of a home and to its fur- 
niture there has been a very marked 
reduction from the duties in the Ding- 
ley bill. Petroleum and all its prod- 
ucts have been made free. 

Decreased Rates on Goods Valued at 
$5,000,000,000. 

Summing up the whole matter, the 
Tariff under the new Payne law has 
been decreased from the Dingley rate 
on imported goods valued in round 
numbers at $5,000,000,000, while the 
Tariff has been increased on goods, 
other than liquors and luxuries, valued 
at only $241,000,000 in round numbers. 
If manufacturers, middlemen, whole- 
salers, and retailers do not absorb 
these reductions in the Tariff, these 
articles in common use should be much 
cheaper to the consumer. 

Now, what will be the effect upon 
the consumer? The National Cloth- 
iers' Association says that it must add 
$3 to $12 suits and $5 to $20 suits, 
because of the increase in the cost of 
cloth on account of the Tariff. There 
has not been a penny's increase in 
this Tariff, either in wool or in the 
cloth. The cloth in a $12 suit costs 
$3, and the duty on the wool would 
be 75 cents. The cost of the cloth in 
a $20 suit is $5, and the duty on the 
wool Is $1.25. As there has been no 
increase this year in wages, rentals, 
buttons, thread, and other thingi 
which make up a suit of clothes, it 
is evident that if an advance is made 
it must be an additional profit to the 
manufacturers and retailers of ready- 
made clothes. The reduction on boots 
and shoes will amount to from 30 to 
50 cents a pair to the manufacturer. 

If we are to retain the Protective 
system, with its underlying principle 
of maintaining American industries 
and the American standard of wages 
and employment for American work- 
Ingmen, and have markets for our 
ever-increasing productive power, this 

Taft-Payne-Aldrich law is the 



Fairest, the Most Equitable, and the Moat 
Beneficent Tariff Bill Which Has Been 
Passed in Our History. 

It will have had fifteen months of 
operation before a general election, 
and in that time will have demon- 
strated its value. There has been an 
increase in the cost of living during 
the last ten years. The saine thing is 
true in all highly organized industrial 
countries. There has been little in- 
crease in the cost of clothing or rent- 
als, and none in transportation. The 
increase has been mainly in the cost 
of food, which makes up so large a 
proportion of the expense of a family 
averaging five or more members. 

"Wheat was selling at the time of the 
enactment of the McKinley bill at 65 
cents a bushel. It now brings $1.20 at 
the farmers' doors. 

Corn was selling then at 15 cents 
a bushel and it is now bringing 65 
cents. 

Beef on the hoof was then selling 
below the cost of production — I think 
about 4 cents a pound — and now it is 
selling at 7% cents. 

These are the principal articles 
which enter into the food of the fam- 
ily. Tariff people believe that this in- 
crease is due to the enorrhous advance 
in the demand because of the purchas- 
ing power of the American people 
from remunerative employment due to 
Protection. 

If, as the statistics apparently prove, 
there were 3,000,000 out of employ- 
ment, and with little or no purchasing 
power for themselves and their fami- 
lies, in 1896 and 1897, and they have 
been reemployed, and employment 
found for all those who had work at 
that time and 7,650,000 additional. It 
will at once be seen where this great- 
er demand 

Has Given Higher Prices to the Farmer, 
though his cost of production has not 
been increased at all. So far as the 
farmer is concerned in this Tariff, 
while reductions have been made, as I 
have cited, in almost everything which 
he uses, the Tariff on his wheat, corn, 
oats, rye, beans, onions, potatoes, flax- 
seed, butter, cheese, poultry, cattle, 
horses, sheep, milk, eggs, and hay has 
remained the same as in the Dingley 
bill except the slight raise in some 
of these products. 



466 



DEPEW. 



Democratic objectors to the Tariff But our insurgent friends must ex* 

complain that the schedules are not plain and, so long as their critical at- 

reduced to the old-fashioned Democrat- titude is unchanged, keep on explain- 

ic doctrine of Tariff for revenue only; Ing why they are more inteUigent, 

at the same time, in the articles in more virtuous and more public-spirted 

which their own States are interested, than the official leader of their party 

they have generally demanded the and the great majority of their polit- 

highest duties known In the bill, claim- ical associates in the two Houses of 

ing, however, that it is not for Pro- Congress. 

tection, but for revenue — as pineapples. The difference between my insurgent 

for instance, at 128 per cent increase. friends and the majority Is that, while 

The Republican insurgents admit that they were the largest contributors to 

there has been a reduction downward the 9,776,000 words in the Tariff 

in the Tariff duties from the rates in speeches in the Congressional Record 

the McKinley bill, but they complain and contributed hardly a line to the 

that it has not gone far enough in Tariff law, we who supported the bill 

articles which are produced in other stayed in the kitchen with the cook 

States than their own, but in the arti- and know exactly not only the in- 

cles in which their States are inter- gredients, but the amount of each and 

ested it has gone too far. the time required for perfection in 

The difficulty with the insurgent the cooking of a cake which will be 
Senators is that while they had a case, enjoyed this Christmas by the whole 
or thought they had, when shouting American people, and the cake will 
so long and so loudly for revision ^^ larger and richer with each re- 
downward, after the Chief Executive of curring anniversary, 
the United States secured such radical Great Increase of Farm Products. 

reductions and then set his seal of -rrrt-v. *i, * x, m .^ 
^, , . , With the passage of the new Tariff 
approval upon the law as revising ,,,, . ■ ^ ^ 
, - ,, . . , -, hill, we enter upon a period of pros- 
downward according to party pledges ,. , ^ 4.1, t.. ^ - .^,-1 

^ ^. ^t ^ perity unknown in the history of this 

and popular expectation, they must ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ 

necessarily while still opposing the ^^^ered by careful examination all 
measure include President Taft in ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^.^^ ^^ ^^ ^^_ 

their criticism and denunciation. We * .^r. ^ i.- ^ 1 ^ 

. crease In the production of winter 
or the majority, wheat, spring wheat, corn, oats, bar- 
Marching Under the Leadership of Our ley, and rye in 1909 over 1908. in round 
President numbers, of one thousand one hundred 
' and sixty-nine millions of bushels, or 
have no explanations to make, because 27 per cent, and that 27 per cent in- 
we know the beneficent results which crease is in comparison with a normal 
have already been experienced and be- year. There will be an increase in 
lieve that greater will follow. The the hay crop in the same period of 
operations of the new Tariff law will over three millions and a half of tons, 
be the most eloquent speech which The following summary of crop re- 
could be delivered in its behalf and in ports, not including cotton, will give 
justification of our votes. some idea of the situation. 

1908. 1909. Difference. Per cent. 

Bushels. Bushels. Bushels. 

Winter wheat 437,908,000 451,175,000 13,267.000 3 

Spring wheat 226,694,000 301,427,000 74,733.000 33 

Corn 2.668.651,000 3,419.287,000 750,636,000 28 

/Oats 807.093,898 1,119,061,000 311,967.102 38 

Barley 166,756.000 183,431,000 16,675,000 10 

Rye 31,851,000 33,443.000 1,592,000 5 

Total 4,338.953,898 5,507,824,000 1,168.870,102 27 

Hay 70,862,596 74,441,146 3,578,000 5.5 

Tariff the Efficient Instrument to Bring prices which this enormous product 
Back Prosperity °' ^^^ thousand five hundred millions 

of bushels is bringing, wliich will all 
When we take Into consideration the be additional riches from the soil, the 



DEPEW. 



467 



Imag-ination is appalled at the new 
wealth which is to come to the coun- 
try. To absorb and pay ior this vast 
production the mills must be running, 
the factories on full time, the mines 
opened, and the transportation com- 
panies crowded with freight. This 
Tariff is the efficient instrument ta 
bring about these results. 

I was through the West In 1894 
when from overproduction and other 
causes all the products of the farm 
were selling for less than cost. Now 
the farmers are richer than ever in 
our experience, with fewer mortgages 
and more money in the banks, be- 
cause industrial conditions create a 
demand which is responded to In 
prices. 



Some two and a half millions of 
new acreage goes under cultivation 
this year. Our farms will add In the 
coming year to the wealth of the coun- 
try in the neighborhood of nine thou- 
sand millions of dollars. There Is now 
on deposit in the banks of the United 
States in round numbers thirteen thou- 
sand six hundred millions of dollars, 
belonging to 25,000,000 of depositors. 
Of these, 6,000,000 are depositors In 
the savings banks, with fifteen hun- 
dred millions to their credit. Uncle 
Sam on this Christmas can smoke his 
pipe in peace, and, while serenely sur- 
veying the future, felicitate himself 
and congratulate the people upon the 
happy conditions of the present and 
our brilliant prospects for the future. 



INDEX. 



Agricultural Implements 393-395 

American Building Associations. ... 412 
American Protective Tariff League. 407 

Antimony 217 

Appeal in Behalf of Importers. ... 292 

Arsenic 41 ^ 

Art, AVorks of 333 

Automobiles 224 



Bacon and Hams 275 

Bagging, Cotton 430 

Bankers and Panic 419 

Barbed AVire 429 

Barley: 

Aldrich 270 

Beveridge 2 69 

Burkett 271 

Gamble 271 

Gronna 115 

Hanna 115 

Heyburn 268, 270 

McCumber 269, 270 

Miller 102 

Root 267 

Steenerson 103 

Barytes 117 

Beef Trust and Hides 361 

Beer and Great Britain 219 

Beet Sugar Industry: 

BristGW 261 

Burrows 253 

Carter of Montana 401 

Cummins 258 

Fordney 31 

Foster of Louisiana 261 

Gaines 88 

Smoot 257, 414 



238, 



PAGE 

262 
414 
344 



Beet Sugar Industry: 

Tillman 

Beets 

Belgium, AVages im 

Binding Twine 430 

Blaine, James G.: 

Definition of n Protectionist .. 154 
On Protection and 3Ionopolies. . 339 

On Hides 364, 388 

On Tariff 154 

Boots and Shoes: 

Payne 429 

President Taft 11 

Warren 387, 389 

Brierwood 121, 226 

British Colombia, Labor in 135 

Broom Industry 414 

Brush Industry 414 

Buchanan, President, on Tariff 69 

Building Associations 412 



Calfskins 372 

Calhoun a Protectionist 242, 397 

Canada: 

Cost of AVootl in 354 

Labor in 135, 193 

Paper Mills in 352, 371 

Reciprocity in Coal 385 

Wages in 3 49 

Cannon, Kansas City Speech of 

Speaker 20 

Carbons 222 

Changes in Tariff S, 432 

Cigar Makers, Protection For: 

Bulkeley 355 

Clapp 338 

Laf ean 132 

La Follette 338: 

Citadel of Protection 165, 168 



(4G9) 



470 



INDEX. 



PACK 

Cleveland on Tariff 69 

ClotheM, Price of 188. 44"> 

Suit of 321, 330, 332 

Clothing; Manufacturers and Tariff. .441 
Coal, Tariff on: 

Aldrich 385 

Burton 386 

Elkins 238, 310 

Focht 33 

Gallinger 311, 386 

Heyburn 312 

Hughes of West Virginia 75 

Humphrey of Washington 138 

Mondell 72 

Payne 428 

Scott of West Virginia 155 

W. A. Smith 386 

Coffee 116 

Competition and Prices 335, 336 

Competitive Products 415 

Conference Committee Report 427 

Consumer and Producer: 

Calderhead 93 

Campbell 436 

Cummins 303, 306 

Edwards 53 

Elkins 194 

Fassett 101 

Gallinger 202, 216 

Hale 194 

Lodge 181 

McCumber 162 

Con.suiiiption Value of Changres..9, 432 
Corporation and Income Taxes: 

Aldrich 256, 402 

Bailey 356 

Clay 402 

Cole 419 

' Heyburn 356 

Root 4U5 

C/Otton, Tariff ont 

Aldrich 214, 289, 396 

Bacon 395 

Culberson 398 

Depew 214 

Fletcher 398 

Frye 282 



PAGB 

Cotton, Tariff on; 

Gallinger 214 

Johnson of South Carolina ....131 

Smoot 277 

Taliaferro 397 

Cotton Schedule: 

Aldrich 289 

Dolliver 292 

Frye 282 

Lo<3&e 279 

Payne 427 

Smoot 276 

President Taf t 10 

Cotton Bassing: 430 

Cotton Ties 398 

Cottonseed Oil: 

Aldrich 144, 218 

Smoot 219 

Tillman 145, 219 

Crockery 10, 184, 186 

Cuba, Wages in 3$ 3 

Cuban Reciprocity: 

Bristow 260 

Clay 225 

Fletcher 383 

Fordney 30 

Foster of Louisiana 225 

Root 385 

Sutherland 260, 384 



Declarations on Tariff, Party 27 

Decreases in Tariff 7, 9. 432, 464 

Democratic: 

Editors and Paper Schedule ... .347 

Free Trade Tendencies 350 

Protectionists 237, 242 

Tariff of 1812 246 

Tariff Planks 244 

Tariff Policy Condemned ..128. 437 
Democrats AV^ho A'"oted for Protec- 
tion 237 

Dingrley E^ulosized 160 

Dingrley Rates for Trading 40 6 

Domestic Prices and Competition, 

335. 336 
Dundee and Free Trade 210 



INDEX. 



471 



EarlT Protectionists 47, 242 

Earthenware 10. 184. 186 



England and Beer 



219 



And Protection 209. 219. 402 

351 

390 



Paper In 

AVagres In 

Export Prices: 

Aldrich 206 

Bacon 206 

Bates ^'^ 

Beveridge 250 

Cummins 206 

Gallinger 180 

Keifer 40 

Knapp "^1 

W. A. Smith 250 



Faith of the Fathers i 

Clayton 146 

Fish 98 

Heyburn 227 

Hubbard 91 

Keifer 146 

McEnery . .242 

Farm Implements 393. 395 

Farm Products, Protection for; 

Aldrich 270, 275 

Burke 115 

Burkett 271 

Calderhead 92 

Cummins 276 

Cushman 60 

Depew 466 

Gallinger 275 

Gamble 271 

Gronna 86, 115 

Hammond 98 

Hanna 115 

Hangen 127 

Heyburn 268, 270, 276. 378 

Kinkaid of Nebraska 125 

McCumber 227, 258. 269. 364 

Miller 102 

Moore of Pennsylvania 426 



Farm Products, Protection for; 

Morgan of Oklahoma 141 

Root 267 

Smoot 414 

Steenerson 103 

Farmers and the Tariff 378 

Fathers, Faith of the: 

Clayton 146 

Fish 98 

Heyburn 227 

Hubbard 91 

Keifer 146 

McEnery 242 

Fathers of Republic "Were Protec- 
tionists 47 

Foreigrn Competition and Domestic 

Prices , 335, 336 

Foreign Interference With Tariff: 

Aldrich 283, 284 

Depew 284 

W. A. Smith 286 

Foreign Trade and Protection; 

Bates 71 

Johnson of North Dakota 267 

Keifer 39 

Tawney , 437 

France and Protection 208 

Free Trade and Dundee 210 

Free Trade Idea, W^alker's 138 

C 

Germany, Wages in 285 

Invasion of 204, 283 

Glass: 

Aldrich 185, 196 

Dick 343 

Dolliver 150 

Gallinger 202 

Oliver 197, 413 

Scott of West Virginia 150, 344 

W. A. Smith 190 

Smoot 193 

Tillman 202 

Gloves and Hosiery: 

Campbell 435 

- Depew 211 

Dolliver 308 

Gaines 89 



472 



INDEX. 



PAGE 



Gloves and Hosiery: 

Gallinger 306-309 

Hill 437 

Moore of Pennsylvania 123 

Payne 96 

Penrose 307, 308 

Scott of West Virginia 306 

Glue 116 



Hosiery and Gloves: 

Gaines 



89 



H 



Hamilton a Protectionist 245 

Hams and Bacon 275 

Harrison's Administration Not 

Banlcrupt 156 

Harvesting: Machinery 393-395 

Hides: 

Aldrich 381 

Beveridge 367, 377, 382 

Borah 361 

Burton 379 

Carter of Montana 366, 368 

Conference Report 427 

Cummins 380 

Clapp 361 

Dick 427 

Dixon 363, 366 

Gamble 375 

Gardner of Massachusetts ....111 

Hale 381 

Kinkaid 125 

Lodge 363, 364, 365, 367 

McCumber 364, 372 

McGuire 102 

Payne 102, 429 

Peters 129 

W. A. Smith 380 

Warren 362-367, 369, 387 

President Taft 11 

Hides and Beel Trust 361 

And Pnclters 366 

And I.eatlier Trust 368, 387 

Duty and Slioes 379, 381 

rinine on 364, 388 

McKinley on 364. 377 

Hosiery and Gloves: 

Campbell 435 

Depew 211 

DcMiver 308 



Gallinger 306-309 

Hill 437 

Moore of Pennsylvania 123 

Pay^e 9g 

Penrose 307, 308 

Scott of West Virginia 306 



I 



Importers, Appeal in Behalf of ....292 
Income and Corporation Taxes: 

-A^ldrich 256, 402 

Bailey 355 

Clay 402 

Cole 419 

Heyburn 356 

Root 405 

Increases in TarlflE 7,9, 429, 432 

Industrial Rivalry in Orient: 

Aldrich 294 

Clapp 338 

Dick 414 

Gaines 90 

McKinlay of California 64 

Oliver 392 

Penrose 309 

Piles 191 

Insurgents, The: 

Aldrich 152, 

295, 298, 304, 329, 330, 332. 416, 454 

Beveridge 249, 295. 296. 298, 299 

Borah 231 

Cannon 21 

Clapp 416 

Clark of Missouri 147 

Clayton 146 

Cummins 303, 304, 454 

Depew 210 

Dolliver 152. 299, 455 

Flint 297 

Fordney 31 

Gallinger 297 

Heyburn 230 

Nelson 184 

W. A. Smith 300 

Sutherland 296 



INDEX. 



473 



PAGE 

InstiirsentM, The: 

President Taft 14 

Interference ^vith American Tariffs: 

Aldrich 283 

Depew 284 

W. A. Smith 286 

Iowa and Protection 452 

Products 335 

Senators 337, 453 

Iroii anti Steel Schedule: 

Focht 36 

Payne 428 

Iron Ore: 

Burrows 198 

Cummins 199 

Dick 427 

Gallinger 201 

Nelson 200 

Oliver 200 

Payne 428 

Rayner 200 

W. A. Smith 200, 201 

Stone 237 

Iron, Pig 391-393 

Scrap 391-393 

Workers In Sweden 265 



Jack-knives 

Jackson a Protectionist 

Japan, "Wages in 

Jefferson a Protectionist 



324 

243 

90 

245 



Kansas City Speech, Speaker Can- 
non's . . . . : 20 

Keystone of Protection. 165, 168 



Labor Cost 324 

Labor in: 

British Colombia 135 

Canada 135, 193 

Philippines 338 

Lead and Lead Ore 171, 178, 219 

Leather Schedule 11 

(See also Hides) 



PAGE 

Leather Trust and Hides 368, 387 

ijenions: 

Flint 271, 272, 286 

Perkins 273, 288 

Root 273 

W. A. Smith ^ ... 271 

Lincoln on Tariff 66 

Lithographs 284, 342 

Loan Associations 412 

Louisiana and Tariff 247 

Lumber : 

Aldrich 159 

Austin 83 

Bailey 237 

Boutell 100 

Bowers 87 

Clapp 236 

Clark of Florida 101 

Crawford 198 

Cushman C3, 94 

Dixon 237 

Dolliver 234 

Elkins 158, 234, 238 

Fassett 101 

Fordney 28 

Gallinger 158, 163 

Hale 159 

Heyburn 229 

Humphrey of Washington . .115, 135 

Lang-ley 83 

McCumber 163, 233 

Piles 191 

Root 228 

Scott of West Virginia 155 

Simmons of New York 113 

Simmons of North Carolina. ... 159 

Swasey 101 

President Taft 11 

Tawney 133 



M 

3IcKlnlcy, William: 

Last Speech of 43 

Principle of Tariff 51, 67, 339 

On Hides 364, 377 

On Protection and Monopolies .. 339 



474 



INDEX. 

PAGE 



PAGE 



Madison a Protectionist 242, 246 

Majority Views and Party Policy.. 416 

Margin of Profit 334 

Maximum Tariff: 

Aldrich 407 

Bacon 409 

Boutell 124 

Clay 445, 446 

Cummins 411 

Hale 445, 446 

Payne 25, 124 

Root 409 

Shively 411 

Metliods of Malvingr Tarilf 455 

Mexico, Wasres in 132, 339, 341 

Mica 222 

5Iinnesota Republicanism 416 



N 



Nails 

New York Speech, President Taft's 
North Dakota and the Tariff 



203 

15 

350 



Oriental Competition: 

Aldrich 294 

Clapp 338 

Dick 414 

Gaines 90 

McKinlay of California 64 

Oliver 392 

Penrose 309 

Piles 191 

Oriental Labor In British Colombia.. 135 



Packers and Hides 366 

(See also Hides) 

Paint 221 

Panic and Dankers 419 

I'anies and Protection: 

Dolliver 320 

Elkins 155 

Gaines 89 

Galllngor 149 

James 419 

Kelfer 37 



Panics and Protection: 

McCumber 156 

McEnery 246 

Miller 419 

Nelson 149 

Scott of West Virginia 150 

Panic of 1893 320 

Paper and Pulp: 

Aldrich 352, 353, 357 

Brown 353, 369 

Bulkeley 349 

Clapp 351, 358 

Currier 83 

I'rye 353, 370 

Galling-er 344, 37(J 

Guernsey 54 

Hale 371 

Malby 119 

Nelson 358 

Payne 428 

Roosevelt on 369 

Simmons of New York 113 

W. A. Smith 360 

Stafford 120 

Swasey 118 

President Taft 11, 17 

Tillman 370 

Paper and Pulp, Democratic Edi- 
tors and 347 

Paper in Engrland 351 

Paper Mills in Foreign Countries. 347 
In Canada 352. 371 

Party Declarations on Tariff 27 

Policy and Majority Views 416 

Petroleum 311 

Philippine Tariff: 

Bulkeley 355 

Clapp 338 

Clay 225 

Fordney 30 

Foster of Louisiana. . . .257. 263, 417 

Lafean 132 

Pujo 122 

W. A. Smith 225 

rig Iron 391-393 

Pineapples: 

Clark of Florida 126 



INDEX. 



475 



PAGE 

Pineapples: 

Dixon 382, 403 

Fletcher 383, 384 

Taliaferro 382-384 

Pledge of Tariff Revision: 

Beveridge 294, 377 

Cole 27, 443 

Cummins 173 

Davidson 420 

Depew 212 

Elkins 298 

Gamble 447 

Heyburn 171, 315, 377 

Johnson 160 

Keifer 422 

Lodge 278 

Nelson 316 

Steenerson 420 

President Taft 10, 16 

Postal Cards 151, 342 

Pottery 10, 184, 186 

Priees and Foreign Competition, 

335, 336 
Prices and Protection: 

Aldrich 179, 204 

Campbell 435 

Carter of Montana 170 

Cole 442 

Clapp 177 

Cummins 174 

Dolliver 321, 322 

Fletcher 187 

Flint 173, 174, 186, 187, 188, 206 

Gallinger 203 

Hale 186, 205, 216 

Johnson of North Dakota 273 

Jones of Washington 413 

Kennedy 52 

Lodge 189, 281 

McEnery 248 

Smoot 189, 193, 204 

President Taft 13, 19 

Tillman 203 

Warren 321, 322, 330 

Prices, Kxport: 

Aldrich 206 

Bacon 206 



Prices, Export: 

Bates 67 

Beveridge 250 

Cummins 206 

Gallinger 180 

Keifer 40 

Knapp 71 

W. A. Smith 250 

Producer and Consumer: 

Calderhead 93 

Campbell 436 

Cummins 303, 306 

Edwards 53 

Elkins 194 

Fassett 101 

Gallinger 202, 216 

Hale 194 

Lodge 181 

McCumber 162 

Profit, Margin of 334 

President Taft: 

Speech at Winona 6 

Speech at New York 15 

Revision Pledge 10 

Protection, Keystone and Citadel of, 

165, 168 

Protection, Intent and Principle of: 

Aldrich 167 

Austin 83 

Bailey 147 

Borah 226 

Bradley 284 

Brownlow 46 

Campbell 434 

Carter of Montana 215 

Cushman 56, 99 

Depew 208 

Dick 459 

Elkins 158 

Fordnev 32 

Gallinger 157 

Gamble 446 

Howell of Utah 86 

Humphrey of Washington .... 45 

Johnson of North Dakota 266 

Keifer 42, 440 

Lenroot . .128 



4T<; 



INDEX. 



Protection, Intent and Principle of: 

Longworth 32 

Madden 128 

Mooi-e of Pennsylvania ....80, 426 

Morse 86 

Needham 457 

Nye 49 

Parker 49 

Reynolds T9 

W. A. Smith 302 

Sturgis 91 

Young- of Michigan 75 

Protection for Farm Products: 

Aldrich 270, 275 

Burke 115 

Burkett 271 

Calderhead 92 

Cuinmins 276 

Cushman 60 

Depew 466 

Gallinger 275 

Gamble 271 

Gronna 86, 115 

Hammond 98 

Hanna 115 

Plaughen 127 

Heyburn 268, 270, 276 

Kinkaid of Nebraska 125 

McCumber 227, 258, 269, 364 

Miller 102 

Moore of Pennsylvania 426 

Morgan of Oklahoma 141 

Root 267 

Smoot 414 

Steenerson 103 

Protection and Foreigrn Trade: 

Bates 71 

Johnson of North Dakota 267 

Kelfer 39 

Tawney 437 

Protection and Panics; 

Dolliver 320 

Klkins 155 

Gaines 89 

Gallinger 149 

James 419 

KVifer 37 



PAGE 

Protection and Panics: 

McCumber 156 

McEnery 246 

Miller 419 

Nelson 149 

Scott of West Virginia 150 

Protection and Prices: 

Aldrich 179, 204 

Campbell 435 

Carter of Montana 170 

Cole 442 

Clapp 177 

Cummins 174 

Dolliver 321, 322 

Fletcher 187 

Flint 173, 174, 186. 187, 188, 206 

Gallinger 203 

Hale 186, 205, 216 

Johnson of North Dakota 273 

Jones of Washington 413 

Kennedy 52 

Lodge 189, 281 

McEnery 248 

Smoot 189, 193, 204 

President Taft 13, 19 

Tillman 203 

Warren 321, 322, 330 

Protection and Rav*- Materials: 

Aldrich 449 

Bailey 237 

Dick 427, 449 

Elkins 238. 309 

Gallinger 450 

Glass 421 

Hamer 44 

Heyburn 312 

Keifer 41, 439 

Payne 430 

Pray 136 

Scott of West Virginia 448 

Sims 421 

W. A. Smith , 449 

Warner 340 

Warren 389, 448. 450 

Protection for tlie South: 

Aldrich 73. 144, 290 

Bradley 163 



IXDl 

PAGE 

Protection for the Souths 

Clark of Florida 114 

Elkins 313 

Fordney 29 

Hamilton 107 

Keifer 38 

Langley • 153 

Lodge 182 

Manufacturers' Record 425 

McCumber 161 

McEnery 247 

Payne 116 

Poindexter 84 

Pou 9^ 

Pujo 97 

Ramsdell of Louisiana 81. 101 

Reeder 130 

Scott of West Virginia 154, 226 

Simmons 159 

Slemp . . ./ 7 6 

Tillman 145. 398 

Townsend 84 

Protection for Tobacco and Cigar 
Industry: 

Bulkeley 355 

Clapp 338 

Lafean 132 

La Follette 338 

Protection and Trusts: 

Aldrich -459 

Borah 361 

Bourne 404 

Burrows 251. 255 

Burton -360 

Clapp 361, 362 

Crumpacker 26 

Cummins 175, 305 

Dolliver 172 

Elkins 312 

Gaines 88 

Gallinger 175 

Graham 120 

Hamilton 107 

Heyburn 220, 304 

Keifer 38, 425 

Rayner 200 

Roosevelt 362 

Smoot l'^5 

Warren 332. 362. 387 



:x. 477 

tAGE 

c 

Protection and Wages: 

Aldrich 291 

Bates 70 

Brownlov/ 48 

Cushman 59 

Dick 343 

Elkins 241 

Focht 35 

Gallinger 265, 348, 349 

Hamilton 105 

Heyburn 183 

Jones of Washington 179 

Keifer 38 

Lodge • 280 

Madden 129 

Scott of West Virginia 447 

W. A, Smith 161, 264 

Sutherland 296 

Protectionists, Early 242 

Pulp (See Paper and Pulp). 

Q 

Quebracho 218 

R 

Rails, Steel 203 

Raisins 404 

Raw Materials and Protection: 

Aldrich 449 

Bailey 237 

Dick 427, 449 

Elkins 238, 309 

Gallinger 450 

Glass 421 

Hamer 44 

Heyburn 312 

Keifer 41. 439 

Payne 430 

Pray " 136 

Scott of West Virginia 448 

Sims 421 

W. A. Smith 449 

Warner 340 

Warren 389, 448, 450 

Razors 187, 204 

Reciprocity: 

And TariflP 406 

Cuban (See Cuban) 



478 



INDEX. 

PAGE 



RecAprocity: 

In Coal 385 

In Competins Products 415 

Reed, Thomas B.: 

On Political Economy 282 

On TarifE Making 55 

On Wages 48 

On a Perfect Tarlflf 55 

Reports on Tariff Bill 24, 427 

Republicans and Their Party . . . . 81, 95 

Revenue Tariff; 

Aldrich 73, 137 

Bacon 397 

Clapp 176 

Kennedy 51 

Langley 153 

Richardson 79 

Revision, Pledge of: 

Beveridge 294, 377 

Cole 27, 443 

Cummins 173 

Davidson 420 

Depew 212 

Elkins 298 

Gamble 447 

Heyburn 171, 315, 377 

Johnson of North Dakota 160 

Keifer 422 

Lodge 278 

Nelson 316 

Steenerson 420 

President Taft 6, 16 

Rhode Island and Minnesota Re- 
publicanism 416 

Rice 122, 399 

Roosevelt, Theodore t 

On Tariff and Trusts 255 

On Wood Pulp 369 



s 



Saccharine 189 

Salt 422 

Scotland and Free-Trade 210 

Scrap Iron 391-393 

Selling Cheaper A broad t 

Aldrich 393 

Bates 67 



Selling Cheaper Abroad: 

Beveridge 250, 394 

Gallinger 394 

Knapp 71 

Piles 395 

W. A. Smith 250 

Sevirlng Machines 207, 208, 395 

Sheep Industry 317, 319, 327, 450 

(See also Wool) 

Sherman, Vice-President, on Pro- 
tection 232 

Shoddy 319 

Shoes and Hide Duty 379, 381 

(See also Hides) 

Silk Industry 274 

South, Protection for the: 

Aldrich . 73, 144, 290 

Bradley 163 

Clark of Florida 114 

Elkins 313 

Fordney 29 

Hamilton 107 

Keifer 38 

Langley 153 

Lodge 182 

Manufacturers' Record 425 

McCumber 161 

McEnery 247 

Payne US 

Poindexter 84 

Pou 99 

Pujo 97 

Ransdell of Louisiana 81, 101 

Reeder 130 

Scott of West Virginia 154, 226 

Simmons 159 

Slemp 76 

Tillman 145, 398 

Townsend 84 

Steel Rails 203 

Trust .175, 200, 212 

Sugar: 

Bristow 260, 261 

Burrows 251 

Clay 225 

Davidson 420 

Fordney 30 

Foster of Louisiana 257, 261 

W. A. Smith 225, 261 



INDEX. 



479 



PAGE 



Suear: 

Smoot 

(See also Beet Sugar and Phil- 
ippine Tariff) 
Suit of Clothes and TariflE. .321. 330, 332 

Price of 1^^' ^^^ 

Sweden, W ages In 



,256 



265 



Ta£t, President: 

AVinona Speech 

Xew Yorlt Speech 

Revision Pledge 

Tariff of 1909: 

President Taft 

Cannon 

Aldrich 147, 275, 458 

Austin ^2 

Bailey 147 

Crawford 1^^ 

Depew 463 

Diekema 43 



6, 15 
. . 20 



Fuller 



113 



Gallinger 148 

Hale 180 

Heyburn 275 

Longworth 33 

Martin 436 

McCall 75, 440 

McCumber 438 

Nelson 148 

Payne 24, 427 

Sharp 79 

Tariff of 1909, Reports on 24, 427 

Tariff Bill, Changes in 8, 432 

Best Ever Passed 12 

Tariff Commission: 

Aldrich 445 

Carter of Montana 180 

Hale 443 

Korbly 140 

Tariff League ' 407 

Tariff and the Farmers 378 

Tariff and Reciprocity 406 

Tariff for Revenue: 

Aldrich 73, 137 

Bacon 397 



Tariff for Revenue; •- 

Clapp 176 

Graham 129 

Kennedy 51 

Langley 153 

Richardson 79 

Tariff, Foreign interference AVith: 

Aldrich 283, 284 

Depew 284 

W. A. Smith 286 

Tariff, Party Declarations on 27 

Tariff Agitation Deprecated 6, 20 

Tariff an Fquitable Tax 418 

Tariff Making, Methods of 455 

Tariff Not Sufficiently Protective. . 418 

Tariff 100 Years Ago 202 

Tea, Tariff on 398-404 

Tilden a Protectionist 244 

Tin Plate: 

Bates 67 

Carter of Montana 401 

Gaines 89 

Payne 26, 97 

Tobacco Groivers, Protection for: 

Bulkeley 355 

Clapp 338 I 

Lafean 132 

La Follette 338 

Trusts and Protection: 

Aldrich 459 

Borah 361 

Bourne 404 

Burrows 251, 255 

Burton 360 

Clapp 361, 362 

Crumpacker 26 

Cummins 175, 305 

Dolliver 172 

Elkins 312 

Gaines 88 

Gallinger 175 

Graham 120 

Hamilton 107 

Heyburn 220, 304 

Keifer 38, 425 

Rayner 200 

Roosevelt on 255, 362 



480 



Trusts and Protection: 

Smoot 

Warren 



INDEX. 

PAGE 



PAGE 



332. 



175 

362, 387 



u 



Umbrellas . . ■ . 
Undervaluation 



Vice-President 
tection . 



Sherman 



Pro- 



216 
205 



232 



w 



Wages and Protection; 

Aldrich 291 

Bates 70 

Brownlow 48 

Cushman 59 

Dick 343 

Elkins 241 

Focht 35 

Gallinger 265, 348, 349 

Hamilton 105 

Heyburn 183 

Jones of Washington 179 

Keifer 38 

Lodge 280 

Madden 129 

Scott of West Virginia 447 

W. A. Smith 161, 264 

Sutherland 296 

Visages Jit Home and Abroad. . . .105, 

143, 348, 390 

In Belgium 344 

In Canada 349 

In Cuba 383 

In Kngland 390 

In Germany 285 

In Japan 90 

In Mexico 132, 339, 341 

In Sweden 265 



Reed on 48 

Walker's Free Trade Idea 138 

Washington a Protectionist 242 

Wheat 258 

White Lead 219 

Winona Speech, President Taft's. . . 6 

Wood, Cost of, in Canada 354 

W^ood Pulp: 

Roosevelt on 369 

Paper and (See Paper) 
W^ool Schedule: 

Aldrich.. 151-153, 164, 166, 167, 172, 

324, 328, 336, 337, 452 

Bacon 169, 324 

Bailey 165 

Carter of Montana 168, 

169, 170, 319, 323, 452 

Cole 441 

Cummins 336, 452 

Dolliver 152, 153, 164, 172, 319, 320 

Heyburn 314 

Johnson of North Dakota 450 

La Follette 390 

McCumber 318, 326 

Money 166 

Owen 323 

Payne 430 

Penrose 325 

W. A. Smith 285 

Smoot 319 

President Taft 12, 16 

Warren 152, 319, 320, 327, 330, 337 

Wool Tariff of 1830 243 

AVorks of Art 333 



Zinc Ore: 

Guggenheim 341 

Heyburn 339 

Morgan of Missouri 132 



20V 34"* 



j 






^ 



THE AMERICAN 
PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE 

was organized under the society laws of the state of New 
York in 1 885. The object is explained by the second article 
of its constitution as follows : 

The object of this League shall be to Protect 
American labor by a Tariff on imports, which 
shall adequately secure American Industrial pro- 
ducts against the competition of foreigin labor. 



MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE 
TARIFF LEAGUE IS EXPLAINED BY THE FOLLOWING 
PLEDGE : 

The undersigned hereby declares his devotion 
to American industrial independence and pledges 
himself to pay to The American Protective Tariff 
League annually the sum of One Hundred Dol- 
lars (or so much thereof as may be called for in 
any year by the Executive Committee), with the 
privilege of terminating this obligation by giving 
written notice to the General Secretary of the 
League on or before December 31st for each year 
thereafter. 



THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST 

published weekly by THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE 
TARIFF LEAGUE, is the acknowledged authority on the 
Protective Tariff not only in the United States, but throughout 
the world. 
Subscription price, Domestic, $2.00 a year; Foreign, $2.50 a year. 

• ' address: 

AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE 

No. 339 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. 



% ^^ 't 











^°^ 





■>. -> 






-^^^^ 



.^ 



5^ vC= 




^ aO • * • ^ 












A^-^^ 



